get_current_user

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the not-connected flow: automatic login portal opening, login_portal card return, and the imperative to present that card without inventing multi-step instructions. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it does not enumerate all possible profile fields.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause earns its place. The conditional login behavior is clearly separated and actionable.

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 tool with no output schema, this description is largely complete: it names the resource, notes company inclusion, and covers the unauthenticated edge case with direct agent guidance. A full field list would be nice but is not necessary for the 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds relevant semantic context about the return value (authenticated user profile, company when set), which is sufficient for a parameterless call.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Return the authenticated user profile.' The parenthetical '(includes company when set)' differentiates it from sibling get_company_profile and clarifies exact scope. This is specific and immediately usable.

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 gives clear conditional guidance for the not-connected case and instructs the agent to present the returned login_portal card rather than improvising steps. It does not explicitly compare with auth_status or login siblings, but the intended use is strongly implied by 'authenticated user profile.'

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