get_current_user_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation and lists output fields, but it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., authentication required, network errors) or side effects. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, front-loaded sentence that contains no extraneous information. Every word is necessary to convey the tool's purpose and output, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the key output fields (login, email, timezone) and implies the scope (current authenticated user). A small gap is the lack of mention of any additional returned fields, but this is minor.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable. According to calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current authenticated user information', listing specific fields (login, email, timezone). The tool name and description uniquely identify its purpose, and the sibling tools (e.g., search_user, get_server_info) are clearly distinct, so an agent can easily differentiate when to use this tool.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks any hints about prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent must rely solely on the tool name to infer usage context.

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