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 behavioral burden. It makes the read-only nature evident through 'Get,' clarifies that the result is the authenticated user's own profile, and adds a load-bearing consequence about playlist ownership. It doesn't discuss rate limits or errors, but for a zero-parameter getter with an output schema, this is sufficient.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second paragraph is compact but substantive: it explains why the returned id matters and prevents a common authorization failure. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

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 zero parameters, a low-complexity read operation, and an existing output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, that it is the authenticated user's profile, and why the id is critical for playlist ownership decisions. No essential guidance is missing.

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 and the schema already represents that with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a 4 is appropriate.

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: 'Get the authenticated user's own profile (id, display_name, ...).' This clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinct from sibling tools like get_playlists or get_saved_tracks, so an agent can differentiate it without opening schemas.

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 gives strong contextual guidance: get_playlists returns both owned and followed playlists, and owner.id is the only way to distinguish them. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this tool when you need the current user's id,' but the implication is clear and reinforced by the Spotify 403 consequence.

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