Show the active pac auth profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the command executes with the active pac auth profile, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only query, what the output format looks like, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

Two sentences with minimal waste, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple inquiry tool, though the second sentence ('Runs pac auth who...') is partially redundant with the underlying intent.

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?

Adequate for a simple informational tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema and which has no output schema or nested objects. However, because there are no annotations, the description would benefit from noting that this is a read-only query and describing the returned identity/environment details.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with all four parameters already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it only reiterates the profile selection concept that the schema already explains in detail. No additional parameter meaning is provided.

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?

States a clear purpose: shows who pac is signed in as and against which environment, and identifies the underlying command (pac auth who). The resource and verb are specific. It only implicitly differentiates from siblings like cs_env_who and cs_login_status rather than naming them, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cs_env_who, cs_login_status, or cs_list_auth_profiles. No exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit context for selection. The agent must infer applicability from the title and sibling names.

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