Get Current User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the exact response payload (no output schema exists) and by explaining the semantic meaning of 'language' and its downstream effects on localization — a non-obvious behavioral trait.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and payload; the second is a focused, non-redundant note on the one field whose semantics an agent could easily misread. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of enumerating return fields and does so fully, including the localization caveat. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret this zero-parameter tool is missing.

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 is 4. The description correctly conveys that no input is needed by framing the result as scoped to 'the current API key'.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('profile of the user associated with the current API key') and enumerates the fields returned. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_project_users, find_project_member, and get_project, which operate on other users or projects.

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 second paragraph gives concrete usage guidance for the 'language' field: use it as the hint for which language to write issue texts and notes in, and expect localized enum labels. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the implicit context (identify the authenticated caller) is clear.

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