turbosign_whoami

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 the output contents (masked API key, org id, sender address, resolution source) and the live API check behavior when verify=True. It does not explicitly mention that verify defaults to true, but that is covered in the schema. It is transparent about the main behavioral aspects.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by one concise sentence that lists reported fields and the verify behavior. No fluff or repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional boolean parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It covers the tool's purpose, output contents, resolution source, and the verify behavior, making it complete for an agent to 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 only parameter, verify, has a schema default but no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by stating that verify=True triggers a live API credential check, which goes beyond the raw type/default. It does not explicitly describe the false behavior, but the implication is clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('which TurboDocx account this machine sends as'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like send, status, and download. It immediately communicates the identity/diagnostic nature of the tool.

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 provides a concrete use case ('useful when the same server is installed on several machines with different accounts') that helps the agent decide when to invoke it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for a simple diagnostic tool.

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