getAuthenticatedUser

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about the tool's role in providing 'current user context' and being a prerequisite for user-specific operations, which goes beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening statement followed by two bullet points that add specific value. Every sentence earns its place by explaining what the tool returns and when to use it, with no redundant information.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description provides sufficient context about purpose and usage. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the exact structure of returned user information (though it mentions key fields). The completeness is good but not exhaustive.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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's purpose as 'Gets information about the authenticated user' with specific details about what information is returned (user.id, username, teamId, roles). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getWorkspace' or 'getCollections' which might also retrieve user-related data in different contexts.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'When a user asks for "my …" (e.g., "my workspaces, my information, etc."), call this first to resolve the user ID.' This gives clear context for usage versus alternatives and establishes it as a prerequisite step for user-specific operations.

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