get-current-user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool retrieves the user associated with the access token, and 'cheapest way to verify the connection' implies a low-cost, read-only operation. While it doesn't mention side effects or permissions, the wording makes the behavioral intent clear.

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?

Two concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. No fluff or repetitive information. Every phrase adds value, including the secondary note about connection verification.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (the current user) and covers a common use case (connection check). Nothing essential is missing.

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 and the schema is empty, so the description cannot add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 'Get the user the access token belongs to,' which is a specific verb + resource and distinguishes this from sibling tools like get-contact or get-matter. It also adds a secondary purpose (connection verification), but the main action is unambiguous.

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 'Also the cheapest way to verify the connection works' provides a clear context for when to use this tool—specifically for lightweight connection testing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools, but for a unique getter this is sufficient.

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