get_authorized_user

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

No annotations provided; the description indicates a safe read operation returning owner profile. It doesn't mention side effects or permissions, but the operation's simplicity makes this sufficient.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose and output, second adds usage context. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 parameterless tool without output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the returned fields (id, username, email, color) and use case, leaving no major gaps.

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?

Input schema has no parameters (100% schema coverage). The description correctly omits parameter details as none exist, aligning with baseline 4 from the rules.

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 tool retrieves the profile of the authenticated user, including specific fields (id, username, email, color). It differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., get_member) by focusing on the token owner.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: to identify 'me' for self-assignment or filtering by current user. This implies alternatives for other users, providing clear usage context.

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