me

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that the response always reflects the read token and does not indicate write token configuration. This addresses a key user concern, though no other side effects or permission requirements are mentioned.

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 three sentences: purpose+output, endpoint mapping, usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficient and front-loaded.

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, no output schema, and low complexity, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and an important behavioral nuance. The tool is simple, and the description is complete.

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 the schema covers all (100%). With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params 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 clearly states the verb 'Identify' and the resource 'the FastPanel account behind the current READ token', listing specific attributes (username, roles, home dir, ssh access). It also maps to the endpoint, making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 the tool: 'Use to confirm which user/token the server is authenticated as.' It also includes a NOTE clarifying that it always reflects the read token, providing context on a potential pitfall. No exclusions are given, but siblings do not offer an alternative for this specific purpose.

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