me

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, strongly indicating safe read behavior. The description adds value by noting that the tool always reflects the read token, not the write token, which is a behavioral nuance beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences plus a note, all front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, endpoint mapping, usage recommendation, and a critical caveat. No wasted words.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety signals, the description is fully complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and a relevant limitation. It covers the necessary context for correct invocation.

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, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters but adds value by listing output fields (username, roles, home dir, ssh access). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this.

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 identifies the FastPanel account behind the current READ token, listing specific fields (username, roles, home dir, ssh access). It distinguishes from sibling tools which operate on other resources (sites, dns, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use: 'Use to confirm which user/token the server is authenticated as.' It also includes a note about what it does not tell (whether a write token is configured), providing clear guidance on limitations and appropriate contexts.

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