Get current user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses what the call returns (the account plus its accessible channels) and that the subject is derived from the auth token, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the scope detail without waste. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so at a high level (account plus accessible channels), which is enough to call the tool correctly. It could say slightly more about the account fields or any token/permission failure behavior, but nothing essential is missing for a zero-parameter read.

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, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed because the identity comes from the token.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the StreamElements user account behind the token') and adds scope ('including the channels it can access'), so the agent knows it returns the authenticated account rather than an arbitrary one. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from near-siblings like users_channels, users_access, or channels_me, which cover overlapping territory.

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 phrase 'behind the token' implies this is the tool for the currently authenticated user, which is adequate implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to alternatives such as users_channels or channels_me when the caller wants another user or channel detail.

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