get_current_user

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior about response formats, including the default markdown view and the structured JSON variant containing instance_url.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and the format guidance is compact. The Args section partly duplicates the schema, but it adds behavioral meaning that the schema lacks, so the redundancy is minor.

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?

For a simple read-only identity tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter choices. The only notable gap is the lack of detail about the instance parameter, but the tool remains confidently invocable.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the format parameter's values and output effects, but the instance parameter is only described as an optional instance with no guidance on accepted values or usage.

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 action: get the currently authenticated YouTrack user. The 'currently authenticated' qualifier differentiates it from user-search or mention-related tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

It explains when to choose each format: JSON for downstream issue hyperlink construction and report markdown as the chat-friendly default. It does not explicitly discuss alternative tools, but the narrow purpose and format guidance provide clear usage context.

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