tokportal_get_current_user

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint (true), destructiveHint (false), and idempotentHint (true), so the tool's safe, non-modifying nature is well-established. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond confirming the tool returns the authenticated user identity. Since there are no contradictions and the annotations are comprehensive, this is a clean case where the tool's behavior is fully transparent through structured fields. A 4 is justified because the description complements annotations without overlapping.

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: 'Get authenticated user.' It is extremely brief and directly informative, containing no fluff or redundant information. Every word is essential. This is an exemplar of conciseness for a simple tool.

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 has no parameters, a comprehensive set of annotations, and no output schema, the description 'Get authenticated user.' is entirely complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does: it retrieves the current authenticated user. The context is low-complexity, and nothing important is missing for selection and invocation. The completeness is excellent.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description 'Get authenticated user.' does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none. By the scoring guidelines, with no parameters and high schema coverage, the baseline is 4, but the description adds no semantic enrichment beyond the schema—it's just a restatement. A 3 is appropriate as the description is minimal but adequate for a param-less 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 'Get authenticated user.' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (authenticated user). It is a distinct capability among the many sibling tools, many of which deal with analytics, bundles, accounts, etc., so it stands out as a simple identity query. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any similarly named tool (none are similar), so it loses the perfect score.

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 tool has no parameters and minimal side effects, so the absence of explicit when-to-use guidance is acceptable. Its purpose is self-explanatory as a basic 'who am I' call, which is implied by the name and description. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools for related user data (no siblings directly compete), so the score is minimally adequate.

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