get_authenticated_user

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify what authentication is required, what specific user information is returned, whether there are rate limits, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise at just 5 words: 'Get authenticated user information.' It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'authenticated user information' includes, how it differs from other user-related tools, what authentication method is required, or what the response format will be. The agent would need to guess or trial-and-error to use this tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation (none needed). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description correctly doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get authenticated user information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('authenticated user information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_info' or 'get_accounts' - the description is generic and doesn't specify what distinguishes this particular user information retrieval from others.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_user_info' and 'get_accounts' available, there's no indication whether this tool returns different data, requires different permissions, or serves a different use case. The agent receives no help in selecting between similar-looking tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.