get_current_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the authentication requirement and implies a read-only operation by saying 'Returns...'. It does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or side effects, but for a simple getter the access constraint is the most important behavioral trait and it is clearly stated.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clearly labeled access note. The access instructions are useful and not redundant, though they could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states what is returned (account details, plan, settings) and explains the authentication prerequisites. It does not provide a full field-by-field output, but that is not required for a simple getter when no output schema is present.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. There is no parameter information needed, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters since none exist.

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 clearly states the tool returns the current authenticated user's account details, plan, and settings for the API key owner. It uses a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_my_profile or get_settings, but the scope (account/plan/settings for the key owner) makes the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 practical access guidance: a Proof account is required, and the agent can either set PROOF_API_KEY or use start_login to establish a session before calling. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_self_api_key or get_settings, so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives dimension is only partially covered.

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