Current GLPI user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: that all other tool calls execute under this identity's rights, which is important authorization information. It does not describe the return shape, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the key identity statement is front-loaded. The first sentence is a grammatical fragment, which slightly weakens readability but not economy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (user, active profile, entity) and why it matters (rights scoping). Only the exact response fields remain unspecified.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool takes no input and reads ambient session state.

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 identifies a specific resource — the GLPI user the tools act as, plus the active profile and entity — which no sibling tool covers, so there is no selection ambiguity. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource ('returns the current user'), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. The second sentence ('Every call runs with that user's rights') implies the sensible use case — verifying identity/permissions before other calls — but the agent must infer it.

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