Hole aktuellen Benutzer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('shows information') but does not mention edge cases like unauthenticated requests, possible null returns, or authentication requirements. No additional context is provided beyond the basic action.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. It is concise, contains no fluff, and is easy to parse.

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 simplicity (no params, output schema present), the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral transparency (e.g., what happens when no user is logged in), leaving gaps that could confuse an AI agent. The output schema covers return values, so this dimension is not penalized 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 has zero parameters, so per rubric baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to document.

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's action: displaying information about the currently authenticated user. The 'current' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling user-listing tools like wp_list_users or admin_get_user, even though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 vs. alternatives. The description merely states the function and provides no context about when it's appropriate, exclusions, or how it relates to other user-related tools such as auth_status or admin_get_user.

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