wakatime_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'validate' and 'return account information,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose error handling, response format, or what happens with an invalid key. The description gives basic behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It communicates the core action and output in fewer than ten words, achieving excellent conciseness.

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 zero-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't specify what 'account information' includes or what a successful validation returns. For a simple tool, this is sufficient but not rich.

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 input schema has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%). The description adds value by explaining the tool's function relies on the API key (likely from configuration/environment), which is not evident from the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description supports it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate the WakaTime API key and return account information.' It uses a specific verb ('validate') and identifies the resource (API key and account info), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wakatime_today or wakatime_summaries which focus on time data.

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 context for use is clear: use this tool to verify API key validity or retrieve account information. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate but not fully explicit.

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