get_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('get') but does not explicitly state it is safe, idempotent, or requires authentication. The behavior is simple enough, but additional context (e.g., 'read-only', 'requires auth token') would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence of five words—no fluff, no unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for a simple operation. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description suffices but lacks detail on what 'user information' includes. An agent might want to know the structure of the returned data (e.g., id, email, name). This is a gap in a minimal but not complete description.

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 schema coverage is high (100% vacuously). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the resource is 'current user', which is not in the schema. It does not need to elaborate further.

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 'Get current user information' clearly specifies the verb (get), resource (current user), and object (information). It distinguishes the tool from its many siblings, which focus on workspaces, secrets, variables, etc., without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. An agent cannot determine if this should be called before other operations or if it returns data needed elsewhere.

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