pennylane_current_dossier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns connection information and uses the /me endpoint, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb comes first, followed by the resource and scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool is a zero-parameter read-only operation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could add one sentence on when to choose it over similar dossier-listing tools, but otherwise nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Per calibration, a 0-param tool receives a baseline of 4 when the schema is empty and the description does not need to compensate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Affiche') and resource ('dossier comptable actuellement actif') with additional scope ('informations de connexion Pennylane'). The 'currently active' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from list-all siblings like pennylane_list_dossiers, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: retrieve the active dossier and connection info. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as pennylane_list_dossiers or pennylane_whoami.

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