Ghost Inspector: verify credentials

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description reinforces this and adds behavioral context: it explains the tool confirms API key validity, lists reachable organizations, returns their IDs, and how to use the output to enable validation runs. It doesn't cover failure modes or rate limits, but key behavior is transparent.

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 exactly three sentences: function, safety/usage, and output guidance. Every sentence adds value, is front-loaded, and has no fluff.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to process the return value (export to GHOST_INSPECTOR_ORG_ID). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds context about the implicit API key and its use, but there are no parameter-level details to explain. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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+resource: 'Confirms the configured API key works and lists the organizations it can reach.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on credential verification and organization access, which is the core of 'whoami'.

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 says 'safe to call first when diagnosing setup,' providing clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the positioning as a first diagnostic step implies when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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