Connection check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns account/workspace info and implies a read-only verification, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or describe error/authentication-failure behavior. The wording is adequate for a simple whoami tool but could be more explicit.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is integrated efficiently.

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 connection-check tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool verifies, what it returns, and when to invoke it. No output schema is needed because the return content is described in plain language.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter 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 action ('Verify the Huly connection and credentials') and a concrete result ('returning the current account and workspace'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like huly_list_documents or huly_get_document by focusing on connection state rather than data operations.

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 timing: 'Run this first after configuring the server.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the instruction to run it first establishes its role as a preliminary check relative to all sibling tools.

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