teamleader_get_current_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Get'), the authentication prerequisite ('currently authenticated'), and the returned information fields. However, it does not mention error behavior, what happens without a valid auth context, or any side effects — adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a parenthetical that adds the practical use. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and the main fields returned. It omits edge-case handling (e.g., unauthenticated calls), but the explicit 'currently authenticated' wording hints at the required context, making this minimally complete for such a simple tool.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no input is required and clarifies what the tool returns instead, which fully compensates for the absence of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('currently authenticated Teamleader user'), and the parenthetical explicitly names the returned data. This distinguishes it from sibling getters like teamleader_get_contact (fetches by ID) and teamleader_list_users (lists all users), so an agent can select it correctly even among many siblings.

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 states the useful scenario ('to find your own user ID, account, language and timezone'), which communicates when to call it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's unique 'current authenticated user' scope makes the appropriate use case unambiguous; no exclusions are needed.

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