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 burden. It implies a read-only operation and explains the behavior of the format parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or destructive actions.

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 concise and well-structured, with an introductory sentence followed by a detailed explanation of formats in an Args section. It delivers necessary information without excess.

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 output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description covers the two output formats and their use cases. It could mention that instance is for specifying a YouTrack instance if multi-instance support exists, but overall it's complete.

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 description coverage, but the tool description explains both parameters: format (with two options and their implications) and instance (described as optional). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the currently authenticated YouTrack user, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which deal with issues, comments, projects, etc., by focusing on user retrieval.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each output format: 'json' for downstream consumers needing structured data including instance_url, and 'report' for chat-friendly markdown. Although it doesn't explicitly compare to alternative tools like search_users, the context is clear enough.

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