bb_get_current_user

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name with minimal added context, offering no details about return value structure, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. It is not misleading, but it adds little beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description is expected to explain what the response contains. It only says 'information about the currently authenticated user,' which is vague and does not specify the user object fields, response format defaults, or how the filter/output_format parameters affect the result. This leaves an agent guessing about the return value.

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 thorough descriptions for both parameters (`filter` with JMESPath examples and `output_format` with enum meanings), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the high schema coverage makes this acceptable per the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get information about the currently authenticated user.' It clearly indicates the tool retrieves the current user's data, with the qualifier 'currently authenticated' distinguishing it from sibling `bb_get_user`. However, it does not explicitly name or reference alternatives, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `bb_get_user` or `bb_get_workspace`. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about typical usage. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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