Get User Context

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the specific data returned (user info, account info, items) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It is consistent and adequate.

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 front-loaded with a summary sentence followed by bullet points. It is mostly concise, though some points repeat similar structures. Overall, it is well-structured and not verbose.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description comprehensively lists all return values: user id, name, title, account plan tier, active member count, trial status, active products, favorite items, and most relevant boards and people. This fully compensates for the missing output schema.

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?

There are no parameters (input schema is empty), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. The absence of parameters is clear, and the description adds value by detailing what the tool returns.

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 states the tool fetches current user information, account information, and relevant items, with specific bullet points. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_board_info and list_users_and_teams by focusing on the current user's context.

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 lists when to use the tool with a 'Use this tool to:' section, covering multiple scenarios. It implies when not to use (e.g., for general search) by stating it reduces the need for search requests, but does not provide explicit exclusions.

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