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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' but does not elaborate on what details are returned, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. The description fails to disclose significant behavioral aspects beyond the basic purpose.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It wastes no words, but could include additional context without becoming verbose. The structure is efficient for quick understanding.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information about its behavior. It states the purpose but does not specify the output structure or any constraints. For a simple read operation, it is barely adequate; more detail would improve completeness.

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 parameters, so the description's job is to clarify what the tool does. It adds meaning by specifying that the tool retrieves details of the currently authenticated user, which is not captured in the empty schema. A score of 4 reflects that it adds value but could be more detailed about the expected return format.

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 ('Get details') and a clear resource ('currently authenticated user'). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_user', which requires a user ID. This makes the tool's purpose very clear.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user'. However, the name and description imply it should be used when the agent needs information about the authenticated user, and not for fetching other users. The lack of explicit when-not or alternative references keeps it at a mid-level score.

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