Show User Info

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate safe behavior. The description adds value by mentioning the globally unique user ID and header requirements. However, it also includes contradictory or irrelevant text about fetching Platform Services with pagination, which degrades transparency. The actual return format is unclear beyond the pagination mention.

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 verbose and contains irrelevant copy-paste text (Platform Services references). It lacks clear structure; key information is mixed with noise. The description could be much shorter and front-loaded with the essential purpose and conditional behavior.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage and annotations, the description should fill gaps like return format and pagination. Instead, it introduces confusion with incorrect pagination claims about Platform Services. It does not fully describe the expected output, and the irrelevant text undermines completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and already documents each parameter well. The description adds slight value by stating that including company_id or project_id returns directory-specific info, which is not fully captured in the schema. However, this does not significantly improve understanding beyond the schema.

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 states the core purpose: 'Returns information on the authenticated user.' It also explains conditional behavior with company_id/project_id. However, it includes irrelevant copy-paste text about 'fetch the full details of a specific Platform Services' and 'paginated JSON array of Platform Services,' which muddles the purpose and could mislead an agent.

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 a note about when the Procore-Company-Id header is required, but it does not give any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative user-info tools (e.g., show_current_company_user, show_company_user). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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