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. It discloses the underlying command ('pac auth who') and that it operates on the active pac auth profile, implying a safe read. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, but for a benign identity query this is a modest 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 short sentences with zero waste; the identity-and-environment answer is front-loaded before the implementation detail. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A simple read-only query tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, so little more is required. The one remaining gap is disambiguating from sibling identity/profile tools, which the description omits.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the four parameters (cwd, profile, background, timeoutSeconds) are already fully documented, including profile-resolution logic. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource — it reports who pac is signed in as and the environment — which is clear and concrete. However, it does not differentiate itself from near-identical siblings such as cs_list_auth_profiles, cs_login_status, and cs_env_who, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 provides no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and names no alternatives, despite several overlapping siblings (cs_login_status, cs_list_auth_profiles, cs_env_who) that could plausibly serve a similar purpose. The agent gets no signal for selecting this tool over those.

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