Текущий пользователь

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load. 'Возвращает данные' implies a read-only lookup, but it says nothing about what fields come back, whether an invalid/expired token causes an error, or whether any authorization scope is required — meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with the identity of the resource front-loaded and the practical purpose second. No filler.

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 trivial no-param read with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and why to call it. It could add a hint about the returned fields (id, name, email) to be fully self-sufficient, but nothing needed to invoke it is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly frames the call as independent of any inputs, since the user is identified by the token alone.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Возвращает данные текущего пользователя') and disambiguates which user by tying it to the API token in use. It implicitly separates itself from kaiten_list_users by focusing on the token owner, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete use case: find your own user id for planning tools (kaiten_plan_day etc.). That is real routing guidance, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative such as kaiten_list_users for other users.

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