users_get_current

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by specifying the endpoint and the exact return fields (`{id, username, global_name, avatar, bot, verified}`), which helps the agent understand what data to expect. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but these are not critical for this simple read operation.

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 compact and well-structured with clear labeled sections: Purpose, When to use, and Returns. Every sentence provides valuable information, and the return type is explicitly listed, making it easy to scan.

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 parameters), the presence of a return description, and supporting annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It includes the endpoint, use cases, and return shape, leaving no critical gaps.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to explain. As a baseline for a no-parameter tool, the description appropriately focuses on purpose and return value rather than input semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the exact resource ('authenticated bot/user profile') with the endpoint (`/users/@me`), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings by clarifying it returns the current user's profile, not a specified user.

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 'When to use' section clearly states two concrete scenarios: confirming bot identity and obtaining the bot ID for tools like `commands_list_guild`. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear and sufficient for typical use.

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