List Users Self

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get Logged In User' and does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or confirm that this is a read-only operation. For a user-facing endpoint, this is a notable gap.

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 extremely short, front-loaded, and contains no filler or repetition. It is efficient for a simple endpoint, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting useful usage and behavioral context.

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 simple endpoint with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it leaves usage guidance and authentication behavior implicit and does not address the accept-language parameter outside the schema. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 schema has one optional accept-language parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, although the parameter is optional and fairly self-explanatory.

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 'Get Logged In User' uses a specific verb and identifies a clear resource: the currently authenticated user. It is distinct from sibling tools that operate on other users or on sub-resources like ratings and favorites, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 implies the obvious use case—retrieve the current user's data—but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as list_admin_users or list_users_self_favorites. The intended context is inferable, but no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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