oc_get_logged_in_account

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds the requirement of 'OPENCOLLECTIVE_TOKEN', which is a valuable operational constraint beyond annotations.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose and one for a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 read-only tool with an output schema available, the description is largely sufficient. It might be improved by hinting at the scope of information returned, but the output schema can compensate. The low parameter count and clear annotations reduce the need for extensive description.

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 input schema has one parameter 'ctx' with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain the parameter's purpose or impact, leaving the agent without guidance on whether or how to use it.

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 'Get information about the currently authenticated account,' using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('currently authenticated account'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'oc_get_account' which likely requires an account identifier.

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 explicitly states that 'OPENCOLLECTIVE_TOKEN must be set,' providing a prerequisite for usage. While it does not directly compare to alternatives, the purpose implies it should be used when the agent needs the authenticated user's own account info, not a specific account by ID.

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