kontist_whoami

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full weight. It discloses that the tool verifies auth and returns identity, and the instruction to run it first conveys a read-only health-check character. However, it does not state what happens on auth failure, whether any side effects occur, or the shape of the identity response.

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, front-loading the core action and then the ordering rule. Every word contributes; there is no repetition of the tool name 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 no-parameter auth check with no output schema, the description provides enough to know what it does and when to call it. It could be more specific about the identity fields returned, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the explicit ordering guidance.

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 covers 100%, so there is nothing the description needs to add about inputs. No parameter documentation is required for correct invocation.

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 the specific verb 'Verify' and states the resource ('Kontist auth') plus what is returned ('basic identity'). This clearly separates it from the balance/transaction siblings, whose purposes are different. Even without a title, the tool's role is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to 'Run this first to confirm credentials before any other call,' which is a clear when-to-use directive. The description also implies a logical gate: only proceed to sibling tools after this succeeds. No alternative tool is named, but none is needed for an auth-check tool.

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