Read current WordPress user

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra context: it requires authentication, it uses view context, and it explicitly warns that the native private output is untrusted. That trust warning and the scope caveat are behavior beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

It is a single sentence with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. The semicolon-clause structure is dense but every clause carries information. Slightly cryptic phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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 two-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies auth requirements, scope limits, and an output-trust caveat. The only gap is the partial coverage of the context parameter, which the agent can partly recover from the enum.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: the account parameter is documented while the context enum is not. The description's phrase 'with view context' adds some meaning to the context parameter by indicating the default/typical value, but it does not explain embed or the account profile label semantics. Marginal value over the schema, fitting a baseline 3.

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 and resource: an authenticated WordPress current-user GET that reads one user. It scopes what the read does and does not verify (site ownership, all plugin permissions). However, it never names or distinguishes itself from plausible siblings like fc_get_profile or list_accounts, leaving the agent to infer which identity-read tool applies.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus an alternative such as fc_get_profile. The negative scoping ('not site ownership or all plugin permissions') bounds what it returns but does not guide tool selection. An agent gets no routing help from the text.

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