qui_get_current_user

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond the call syntax; it does not mention authentication requirements, response characteristics, or side effects. The annotation lowers the bar, but the description provides marginal extra value.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint name. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description is fairly complete for a simple GET endpoint. It correctly identifies the endpoint and argument passing convention. However, it omits explicit mention that this returns the authenticated user's information, relying on the tool name for that.

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 input schema is a generic 'arguments' container with no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that path variables go directly, query values go in arguments.params, and the body goes in arguments.body. This provides essential semantics that the schema lacks.

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 explicitly names the endpoint 'GET /auth/me' and the tool name 'get_current_user' together imply retrieval of the current user. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly state what the endpoint returns or differentiate it from sibling tools like validate_session.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains how to pass arguments, not when to invoke the tool or what context it is appropriate for.

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