Teamwork: current user

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no side effects, but the description adds meaningful context by specifying the exact output (user, site URL, admin status) and tying it to the API key owner. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, providing the agent with concrete expectations about the response.

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, concise sentence that leads with the action and then lists the three key pieces of information returned. There is no redundancy or filler, and it is immediately scannable.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description provides sufficient information: it names the resource and the specific fields returned. It does not mention error cases or authentication prerequisites, but these are implied by 'configured API key'. The tool is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect.

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, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters. It correctly focuses on output rather than input, which is appropriate for a no-arg tool.

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 specific verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('the Teamwork.com user that owns the configured API key'), and enumerates the returned fields (user, site URL, admin flag). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth_status (which likely only checks authentication) and list_people (which lists others). The purpose is unambiguous and self-contained.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool for retrieving current-user details, nor does it contrast with auth_status or logout. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate. This is a clear gap.

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