벨로그 계정 확인

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it uses the current token to check the account, which aligns with annotations but doesn't provide significant new behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.

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 that efficiently conveys purpose and usage. Every word serves a purpose; there is no waste.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown but noted) and zero parameters, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and context. It is complete for a straightforward authentication check tool.

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 schema provides all necessary information trivially. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does (checking account with token), which compensates for the lack of parameter details. With zero parameters, the baseline 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 tool checks the Velog account associated with the current token. It uses a specific verb (확인합니다) and resource (벨로그 계정), and the sibling tools (e.g., velog_login, velog_list_posts) indicate this is distinct for authentication verification.

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 specifies it is for '인증 점검용' (authentication check) before publishing, providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but for a simple auth check tool this is sufficient.

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