Health Check

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, leaving the behavioral burden on the description, which delivers: PAT verification, auth/permission implications ('every other tool requires a projectId'), a 30s staleness window for renamed orgs/projects, the wildcard-scope return shape, and the caveat that `role` is informational rather than a security guarantee. This is genuinely context an agent could not derive elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative 'ALWAYS call this first,' and each subsequent sentence carries distinct operational value (projectId extraction, role semantics, wildcard handling, staleness, error recovery). It is dense and slightly long, but little of it is 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values itself — and it does, covering identity, orgs, projects, projectId/names, role, and the wildcard `allProjects: true` shape. Combined with the error-recovery guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description does imply the response shape (projectId, orgName, projectName, role, allProjects), which is useful even though there are no inputs to document.

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 specific actions with verbs and resources: verifies the PAT, returns account identity, and lists every organization and project with projectId and human names. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling tool, all of which concern test cases, runs, sessions, releases, or integrations rather than identity discovery.

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?

Explicitly says 'ALWAYS call this first — before any other tool in every session' and adds a second trigger: 'Also call this whenever you get a PROJECT_NOT_FOUND or auth error.' It also names the alternative path for wildcard-scope accounts (ask the user or call a listing tool), so both when-to-use and when-to-deviate are covered.

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