list_auth_me

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint—it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error responses, or side effects. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add any behavioral nuance beyond what the schema and annotations provide. It is essentially a tautology of the purpose.

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 extremely concise: one line plus the HTTP endpoint. Every word earns its place. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return details are not the description's job. It has no parameters, and annotations cover safety. However, the description does not mention any preconditions (e.g., requires an active session) or typical error cases (e.g., 401 when unauthenticated). For such a simple tool, this might be acceptable, but given the minimal guidance, a 3 reflects that it is adequate but not rich. It does not explain what 'logged-in user' means in context or what the response represents.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details because none exist. No additional meaning is needed, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get logged-in user.' This is specific and unambiguous, and the tool name list_auth_me is well-aligned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling auth tools like create_auth_local or create_auth_plex, though its purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer it. No explicit comparison is made, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only provides the endpoint path. No mention of when to prefer it, prerequisites like being logged in, or when not to use it. This is a minimal description with no usage context, so a 2.

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