get_current_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that the tool returns user information and serves authentication/verification purposes. No side effects or advanced behaviors need disclosure; the description is honest and 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences packed with purpose, return fields, and use cases. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the return fields. It covers authorization context (PAT), common use cases, and multi-tenant awareness. No gaps are apparent for this 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 input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description implicitly acknowledges this by not mentioning any inputs. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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's purpose: retrieving current Jira user info. It specifies the returned fields (username, display name, email, timezone) and provides three concrete use cases. This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue or list_worklogs.

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 lists when to use the tool: to verify PAT validity, get username for JQL/assigneeFilter, and confirm account in multi-tenant setups. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but for a simple read-only tool, this is adequate.

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