katto_get_account

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

The description's 'Read-only' matches the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, and it adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the tool reports the account tied to the key, the key's scopes, and specific quota fields. No extra side-effect warnings are needed for a read-only getter.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It opens with the most important operational fact ('Read-only'), then compactly enumerates the exact information returned: plan, scopes, and monthly quota with named subfields. There is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will be returned and in what shape, and the annotations cover the safety profile. There are no missing prerequisites, inputs, or side-effect concerns.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description contributes no parameter-specific information, but none is needed; the only contextual element, 'this key', refers to the implicit authentication context rather than a call parameter.

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 identifies a specific resource—the account behind the current API key—and names the returned data: plan, scopes, and monthly quota. The verb is only implied by the tool name/title and 'Read-only', but the resource is concrete and distinct from the sibling tools that deal with jobs, clips, or sources.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_usage or other siblings might be better for particular quota questions, and it provides no explicit context like 'use this to inspect the current key's account.' The intended usage is inferable but not stated.

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