get_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 a GET request (implying read-only) and implies the user must be logged in, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, what happens when not authenticated, or any rate limits. The endpoint provides some behavioral context, but the description could be more explicit about safety and error scenarios.

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, efficient sentence that states the action and resource, with the API endpoint in parentheses for extra clarity. There is no wasted words or 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the core purpose. It is adequately complete for a straightforward get-current-user endpoint, though it could mention the shape of the returned information or typical use cases. Given the low complexity, the description is mostly sufficient.

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, so there is no parameter information to add. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed.

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 states a specific action ('取得' - get) and a specific resource ('目前登入供應商使用者' - currently logged-in supplier user). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_vendor_profile (which likely gets a vendor by ID) and auth_status (which checks authentication status). The inclusion of the API endpoint (GET /v1/auth/me) further clarifies its purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when this should be preferred over similar tools such as auth_status or get_vendor_profile, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites.

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