Current User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, fully covering safety and idempotency. Description adds no behavioral details beyond 'Get information', which is redundant with annotations. No extra context about side effects or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the key action and resource. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

Tool is simple (no required params, no output schema). Description states 'Get information' but doesn't specify what information (e.g., user id, name, email). For an agent, additional context on the return value would improve usability, but the current description is minimally adequate.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, and the parameter 'userCredentials' has a clear description in the schema stating it's optional with fallback. Description adds no additional semantic information about parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get information about the current authenticated GitLab user'. Verb 'get' and resource 'current authenticated GitLab user' are specific and unambiguous. Distinct from sibling tools that operate on other entities or users.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. For a simple retrieval tool, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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