Who am I

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds non-annotation context by disclosing the returned content (account identity plus workspaces and their IDs), which is valuable since there is no output schema; it does not discuss auth failure modes or the shape of the response beyond that.

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, zero filler. What the tool returns is front-loaded and the actionable follow-up (team IDs feed typst_create_project) comes second.

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, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: it names the identity and workspace data returned, notes team IDs are included, and connects that output to the tool that consumes it.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter claims are made that could mislead.

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 and resource ('Show the signed-in typst.app account and its workspaces') and scopes the result to personal plus team workspaces with their IDs. No sibling tool does anything similar, so it is unmistakable in the toolset.

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 tells the agent the downstream purpose: 'Use the team IDs for typst_create_project', which effectively defines when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., what happens when not signed in), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule.

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