get_user_id

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. It effectively describes the return value format ('UUID format identifier') and adds valuable operational context with the 'Performance Tip' about caching for multiple API calls. It doesn't cover potential errors, authentication needs, or rate limits, but provides solid behavioral guidance for a read-only operation.

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 perfectly structured with clear sections: purpose statement, return specification, usage context, and performance tip. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 identifier retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what it returns and when to use it. The performance tip adds operational value. It could potentially mention authentication requirements or error cases, but overall it's quite complete for this tool type.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its single optional parameter (ctx), but the tool description appropriately focuses on the core functionality since this appears to be a zero-parameter tool in practice (ctx has a default of null). The description doesn't need to explain parameters when the tool effectively takes none, earning a strong baseline score.

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 specific action ('Retrieve') and resource ('current user's unique identifier'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project_id or get_organizations. It specifies the exact scope ('current user') and format ('UUID format identifier'), making the purpose 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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Required for: Constructing paths or references to personal resources'), which helps differentiate it from other user-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.

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