get_current_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or side-effect-free. Since it's a simple getter, the read-only nature is implied, but the description could have been more explicit about lack of side effects or rate-limiting behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get the user the API token belongs to') and defines the term 'me'. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what it returns (the user identity). It could optionally specify the output format (e.g., user object fields), but this is minor for a basic getter. Overall, an agent can confidently invoke it.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. Per the rules, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed.

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 the resource ('the user the API token belongs to'), and explicitly defines 'me' as the current user. It distinguishes this tool from all siblings, which operate on spaces, boards, cards, and other resources, none of which address authentication identity.

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 the use case: identify the authenticated user when needed. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling list makes it evident that this tool is unique for current-user retrieval. The context is clear enough, though explicit exclusions would have scored higher.

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