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 what data is returned (id, inbox id, plan, registration) which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior when unauthenticated, or whether the call has side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler tokens; every listed field is informative rather than redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the primary return fields, which is the key missing structured data. It stops short of describing auth/error behavior, but for a zero-parameter read of the current principal this is close to sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('signed-in user') and enumerates the returned fields (id, inbox id, plan, registration info). It is trivially distinguishable from the task/habit/project siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly because none overlaps.

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?

Usage is implied by 'signed-in user' — the agent can infer this is the identity/context lookup — but there is no explicit statement of when to call it, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or failure conditions.

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