ClockNext: identify workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral outcome: returning the organization identity and sandbox/live status. It also adds safety context about verifying the workspace before real usage. However, it does not detail the exact response structure or any potential side effects, though for a read-only identity check this is adequate.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, then adds the critical sandbox/live distinction, and ends with actionable usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple, zero-parameter identity-check tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (org identity and sandbox/live status), and when to invoke it. No other information is necessary for the agent to use it correctly.

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 is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately omits any parameter details. There is nothing missing here.

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's function: 'Identify the ClockNext organisation behind the configured API key' with the critical distinction of sandbox vs. live. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that differentiates it from sibling tools, which focus on other operations like listing models, recording usage, or managing customers.

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 explicit usage context: 'Call this FIRST to confirm you are pointed at the intended workspace before recording any real usage.' This clearly indicates when to use it (as a preliminary verification step) but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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