get_current_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the session-based auth requirement, the API-key incompatibility, the 404 failure mode, the structured explanation fallback, and the return format. This is unusually thorough.

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 well organized with clear sections for purpose, caveat, args, and returns. Every sentence adds useful information, and the important auth limitation 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, auth constraints, error behavior, and return format. The only meaningful gap is the lack of concrete guidance on where valid connection_name values come from.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented connection_name parameter. However, 'Name of the Grafana connection' adds little beyond the schema title 'Connection Name' and does not explain how to obtain or format valid connection names, such as referencing list_connections.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Get profile information for the authenticated Grafana user.' It clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes this from siblings like list_users or get_current_org by emphasizing the current authenticated user.

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 explicitly warns that the endpoint only works with session-based authentication and that API key auth returns a 404, which gives clear when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name an alternative tool for API-key scenarios, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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