Contract Testing: Get Current User

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

Annotations already define the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the burden on the description is lower. It adds useful context that the profile belongs to the authenticated user, which clarifies the operation's scope. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds a small but meaningful behavioral detail beyond them.

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 core description is one concise, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose. The 'Toolset' line adds organizational context, and 'Parameters: None' is redundant with the empty schema but not distracting. It is appropriately sized with no wasted wording, though not as tight as possible.

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 annotations covering safety, the description is essentially complete. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the description names the resource ('profile'), and the operation is a simple retrieval. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers everything (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information beyond stating 'Parameters: None,' which is redundant but harmless. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate — nothing is missing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('profile of the currently authenticated user'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like contract-testing_admin_get_user (admin-scoped) and contract-testing_get_user_preferences (preferences). An agent can infer exactly what this tool does from the first sentence.

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 implies usage by stating 'currently authenticated user' — it is obvious this is for retrieving the caller's own profile. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives like get_user_preferences or get_system_preferences, nor does it provide any exclusions. Context is clear but not explicit.

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