get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the specific context that it retrieves information about 'the authenticated user', which clarifies scope beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format details.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the essential information ('Get information about the authenticated user'). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (0 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of both comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the target ('authenticated user'), which is crucial context. However, it could slightly improve by hinting at the type of information returned (e.g., 'profile details') to better guide the agent.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space explaining non-existent parameters, and the schema fully documents the empty input structure.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the authenticated user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other user-related tools (none exist in the sibling list), so it doesn't reach the highest score of 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication context), nor does it compare to other tools that might provide user information indirectly. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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