Show Current Company User

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it is read-only, returns a single JSON object, and discloses error payload semantics with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). It also reveals the company_id defaulting behavior from procore_set_config, which is not inferable from annotations alone.

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 moderately sized but efficiently packs purpose, usage, safety, error handling, and endpoint details into a coherent set of sentences. The only redundancy is the explicit 'Required parameters' line, which duplicates the schema, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states what is returned, when to use it, how company_id behaves, that it is read-only, what error codes to expect, and the exact API endpoint. No significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter, but the description adds valuable context: company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and it confirms the role as a URL path parameter. This goes beyond the bare schema, despite the slight tension between 'required' and the defaulting behavior.

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 'Show detail on the current Company User' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the 'current' user, reinforced by the endpoint /rest/v1.3/companies/{company_id}/me. This makes it unambiguous that the tool returns the authenticated user's details, not an arbitrary company user.

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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Use this when you already know which current company user you want and need its full field set.' It also explains the defaulting behavior of company_id, giving practical context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like show_company_user_v1_3, so it lacks a when-not clause.

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