pennylane_whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavioral context: the tool validates the auth token and returns account/company identity, positioning it as a connectivity probe.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and the usage directive; the trailing "Returns: str: JSON..." line is largely redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief and does not bloat the definition.

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 connectivity/identity check with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema handling return values, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule; there are no parameter semantics to document and the schema is trivially complete.

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 concrete verb ("Vérifie la connexion") and resource ("API Pennylane") plus what it returns (user and connected company info). This is naturally distinct from the many CRUD siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name a contrast.

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?

"Utilisez cet outil en premier pour valider que le token est fonctionnel" gives a clear, actionable when-to-use instruction for first-run/health-check scenarios. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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