keel_whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. It transparently states the operation (verify API key, return connected organization) and explains the tier field's possible values. It does not discuss error cases like invalid keys, but for a zero-parameter read-only identity tool this 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?

The description is a compact single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately states when to use the tool. It includes only necessary information—return shape, tier enum, and usage guidance—with no wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fully self-contained: it names the operation, gives the exact JSON response shape, enumerates the tier values, and provides clear usage context. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning the description needs to add. The schema already covers all params vacuously, and the description appropriately skips param documentation in favor of output details.

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 a specific verb ('Verify') and resource (API key / connected Keel organization), and specifies the exact returned structure including id, name, and tier with plan values. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like keel_list_vendors or keel_create_task.

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 instructs 'Use this first to confirm which workspace you are acting on,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. Even though no alternatives are named, the identity-check nature of the tool makes this guidance decisive and sufficient.

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