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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'authenticated user' which implies authentication is required, it doesn't specify what information is returned, format of response, error conditions, or any rate limits. For a user information retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent to understand.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. Every word in the description serves a clear purpose in conveying what the tool does.

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 parameterless tool that retrieves user information, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent lacks information about what specific user data is returned, the response format, or any authentication requirements beyond the mention of 'authenticated'. The description is minimally complete but leaves important contextual gaps.

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 already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool where the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the current authenticated user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_users', but the focus on 'current authenticated' user provides some distinction. The purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand this retrieves user profile data rather than a list of users.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_users'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or comparison with sibling tools. The agent would need to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone without explicit guidance about authentication state or when this information is needed.

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