Get Current User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the list of returned fields, which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, or the exact response structure. Given the annotations, the description provides modest additional context beyond what is structured.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the returned fields. There is no redundant wording, and every phrase adds value. The description is appropriately brief for a simple read-only operation.

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 straightforward read-only profile retrieval with an optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key fields. It does not describe the full response envelope or error conditions, but given the simplicity and the annotations, it is reasonably complete. An agent can call it correctly based on this description alone.

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 provides a complete description for tenantId, including type, pattern, and usage guidance (omit when default or single tenant). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add param details. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents it.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('current authenticated user's profile information'), and explicitly lists the fields returned (display name, email, job title, department). The qualifier 'current authenticated' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user (which likely targets a specific user by ID) and search_users, so an agent can select it correctly without ambiguity.

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 implies usage when the current user's profile is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion conditions. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_user or search_users, though the 'current' qualifier partially signals the intended context. The description leaves the selection logic to inference rather than spelling it out.

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