내 계정 확인

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool's output is reused as a fallback username in other operations, and it can serve as a token liveness check. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, each carrying distinct value: the primary function and the integration use case. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool with good annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and integration. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit return format, but the phrase '여기서 얻는 계정' (the account obtained here) implies the returned user object, which is sufficient.

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 is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details, but it implicitly explains the output's role (the authenticated account) which is the meaningful semantic content for a no-parameter tool.

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's function: '현재 토큰으로 인증된 계정을 확인한다' (checks the account authenticated with the current token). It specifies the resource (authenticated account) and adds a secondary purpose of checking token liveness. This differentiates it from sibling tools like velog_get_user, which fetches arbitrary users.

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 gives clear usage context: it is used to verify the token and serves as the source for the default username when omitted in other tools. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the guidance about its integration with other tools is practical and distinguishes when to use it.

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