get-current-user

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety aspects. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that only a subset of properties is returned by default, explains how to retrieve additional properties via $select, and mentions support for extensions and Microsoft Entra ID customers. This enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 moderately concise but could be more front-loaded; it starts with the core purpose but includes detailed operational notes that might be better structured. Sentences earn their place by explaining defaults, customization, and customer use, but it feels slightly verbose for a simple retrieval tool, reducing efficiency.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, behavioral nuances like default properties and extensions, and usage hints. With annotations providing safety info and schema covering parameters, the description adds sufficient context, though it could benefit from more explicit guidance on parameter interactions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds some semantic context by mentioning $select for retrieving non-default properties, which relates to the 'select' parameter, but doesn't elaborate on other parameters like 'ConsistencyLevel' or 'expand'. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 properties and relationships of the user object, specifying it returns a default subset of properties. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the current user rather than listing or searching for users. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'list-accounts' or 'search-query' for user retrieval, keeping it at a 4 instead of a 5.

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 usage by mentioning how to get non-default properties via $select and extensions, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-accounts' or general search tools. It provides some context on customization options but lacks clear when/when-not guidance or named alternatives, resulting in an implied usage score.

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