get_user_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves user information but doesn't specify what information is returned, whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves sensitive data.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for a simple tool.

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 potential complexity (retrieving user info often involves sensitive data and authentication) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, any security implications, or error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required,' so it misses a perfect score. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, but the tool's zero-param nature elevates it slightly.

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 current authenticated user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_actor' or 'get_record', which also retrieve information about specific entities, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 (e.g., authentication status), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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