获取当前用户

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 an important behavioral constraint beyond annotations: requiring a valid login state. This is useful operational context for the agent.

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, well-structured sentence conveys the purpose, key fields, and authentication requirement without any filler. The most important differentiator 'current logged-in user' 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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description leaves nothing essential unsaid. The only non-obvious external dependency, a valid login, is explicitly stated. No further behavioral or return-value details are required.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by vacuity and the baseline score is 4. The description provides no parameter-level detail, but none is needed for an empty input schema.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving the current logged-in user's information, listing concrete fields like nickname, ID, and follower count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_user_profile (which targets other users) and get_my_following (which covers following relationships).

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 states the key precondition — a valid login session — which makes the intended usage context clear. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'current logged-in user' framing makes the appropriate use case obvious relative to sibling tools.

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