Get current Wiki user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note – that calling it is a safe way to probe auth state – but says nothing about the shape of the returned user object, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single short clause with zero filler, and the key noun (the authenticated user) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse to stand on its own without the title, but nothing is wasted.

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 no-parameter read-only tool the description is close to adequate, and the auth-probe note is a nice touch. But with no output schema, the description is the only place that could explain what the returned user contains, and it does not.

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 of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify in terms of arguments, and it does not waste words pretending otherwise.

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 the specific resource returned – the authenticated Yandex Wiki user – and the title supplies the verb (Get). It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a full verb+resource statement, and it does not explicitly name the parallel tracker_me_get/forms_me_get siblings, but an agent can still tell exactly what this returns.

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?

'(a safe auth probe)' implies a usage context – verifying that credentials work – which is more than nothing. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no routing versus the near-identical tracker_me_get and forms_me_get siblings.

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