access_management.get_my_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond this by disclosing the concrete HTTP endpoint, the return type (dict[str, Any]), and the failure shape ({"error": "..."}). It does not mention rate limits or other failure modes, but for a zero-parameter read call the disclosure is solid.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the primary action, the endpoint plus use case, and the return/error format. It is front-loaded with the most important information. Slightly dense with the 'Returns:' type annotation, but that detail justifies itself given the absence of an output schema.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the exact endpoint, the intended migration-user-identity scenario, the return object type, and the error case. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description's mention of 'for the API token' correctly signals that the identity is derived from the token rather than passed in.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve the currently logged-in user for the API token') and names the exact endpoint (GET /api/users/loggedin). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like access_management_get_user and access_management_get_users_all, which target specific users or all users rather than the token's own identity.

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?

It gives an explicit intended use case: 'Use this to resolve migration user identity (email, username, internal ID) for the authenticated admin token.' This is clear context an agent can act on. However, it does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool versus the similarly named get_user/get_users_all siblings.

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