Current User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: this is a credential/identity check that should precede other workspace or document calls, which no annotation conveys. Minor gap: it does not say what happens when unauthenticated.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the identity of the return value is front-loaded and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present (so return shape needn't be described), rich annotations, and no parameters, the description supplies all an agent needs: what is returned and when to call it. Nothing material is missing for a tool of this complexity.

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 no parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies a zero-argument call.

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 and resource ('Return the currently authenticated AFFiNE user profile'), which is unambiguous and distinct from the neighboring sign_in (authentication) and update_profile (mutation) tools. An agent can identify exactly what this tool yields without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the use case: 'verify credentials before workspace or document operations,' which gives the agent a concrete precondition workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to call it), so it lands just below the top band.

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