active_account_info_tool

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

The description discloses that the API key is masked in the output, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover other traits like authentication requirements or error conditions. The description carries the full burden but is minimal.

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 sentence, highly concise, and front-loads the core purpose. Every word is informative with no wasted space.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does ('get account info') and a key output detail ('api_key masked'). No additional context is needed for such a simple tool.

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 no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, but that is acceptable since there are none.

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 'Get' and resource 'currently configured account info', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like setup_gjq_account_tool which sets up an account.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the tool is simple and its purpose is clear, it could benefit from mentioning that it is for retrieving account info rather than modifying it.

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