kdy_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 discloses read-only behavior and zero parameters, which are important. However, it does not mention how authentication is handled, potential error responses, or what happens if the user is not authenticated. The lack of behavioral detail beyond these basics leaves gaps for an agent relying solely on the description.

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, compact sentence that conveys the purpose, key behavioral traits, and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the most critical information (current user info, read-only, zero params) and includes the endpoint for reference. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool's extreme simplicity (no params, no output schema, likely a trivial GET), the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool returns (current user info) and its role as a connectivity probe. The only minor gap is lack of explicit comparison to the sibling 'kdy_health', which could help an agent decide which probe to invoke. Otherwise, the description suffices for correct invocation.

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, and the schema is empty (100% schema coverage). The description reinforces this by stating '零参数' (zero parameters). Since no parameters exist, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately adds no extra parameter details beyond confirming the absence, which is sufficient.

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 the tool retrieves current user information via a specific GET endpoint. The phrase '只读' (read-only) and '连通性探针' (connectivity probe) add context, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'kdy_health', which likely serves a similar diagnostic purpose. Purpose is clear, but sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 this is a lightweight connectivity probe, suggesting it could be used to verify connectivity or authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like 'kdy_health' or 'kdy_auth_fetch_token'. The usage context is present but not formalized with exclusions or alternative routing.

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