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. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation via 'Return', and identifies the scope (the API key's owner). For a zero-parameter, non-destructive tool, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure—nothing is hidden or surprising.

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 a single, focused sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, contains zero filler words, and conveys all essential information without redundancy.

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 an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It states what is returned and the authentication context (API key owner). There are no prerequisites, side effects, or edge cases an agent needs to be warned about.

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 description does not need to explain any. The schema covers all (zero) parameters, and with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information but none is needed.

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 a specific action ('Return the profile') and a clear resource ('the user the Plane API key belongs to'). This uniquely distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which target other resources like work items, projects, or comments.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need information about the currently authenticated user. While no exclusions or alternatives are explicitly mentioned, the tool's self-contained nature and unique purpose make the appropriate usage obvious.

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