Current Appsmith user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool is a read-only, non-destructive confirmation operation by describing it as returning user/instance info and framing it as a 'confirm' step. However, it doesn't detail the return format, what happens on auth failure, or what specific instance fields are returned.

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 sentences, zero waste. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the function, the second gives the usage directive. Extremely efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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, no-output-schema, read-only diagnostic tool, the description is appropriately complete. It explains what it returns and when to use it. A slightly richer description of what the 'instance info' contains could improve it, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret this tool 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 coverage is 100% (empty object, trivially complete). The description adds the purpose context of the call beyond what an empty schema conveys. With no parameters to document, there's little more parameter-semantics value to add, so the baseline 4 for the zero-param case applies.

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 states the tool returns 'the authenticated Appsmith user and instance info,' which is specific with a clear verb ('returns') and resource (authenticated user info). It defines the scope well. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but as a whoami-style tool it's self-evidently distinct from the list/create/update/delete tools in the sibling set.

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 explicitly says to 'Use this first to confirm the MCP server can reach and log into the instance.' This is a clear when-to-use directive with a diagnostic purpose, serving as a connectivity/auth check before other operations. It's excellent guidance for the agent.

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