identity_get_logged_in_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important context beyond annotations: the tool is deprecated, names the replacement endpoint, and lists role-based access. It does not describe response format or the effect of the expand parameter.

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 deprecation warning and replacement API are front-loaded, which is good. However, the large markdown access-policy table and repeated endpoint path consume significant space without helping an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 deprecated read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational fact: do not use it, use /oidc/userinfo instead. It still leaves the only parameter, expand, unexplained and does not name an MCP sibling as the replacement, which limits completeness.

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 schema has one optional boolean parameter, expand, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what expand does, when to set it, or what additional data it returns, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. The parameter name gives only a weak hint.

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: get the currently logged in user. It also clearly marks the tool as deprecated and names the replacement API, so an agent knows what it does. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the similar sibling identity_get_logged_in_user_details.

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 deprecation notice gives explicit guidance to use /oidc/userinfo instead, which is strong when-to-use information. The access policy table also clarifies which roles can call it. It lacks guidance on whether there is ever a valid reason to call this deprecated endpoint instead of the replacement.

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