nworks_whoami

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('checks') and mentions it returns account info and token status. However, it lacks details on error behaviors (what happens with expired tokens), rate limits, or whether this call refreshes the token.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence defines the function (what it checks), second sentence defines the usage context (when to call it). Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, diagnostic purpose) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context by indicating it returns account information and token validity. Sufficient for an agent to understand this is a pre-flight auth check.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools have a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately implies no inputs are needed for this introspection operation.

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 (확인합니다) authenticated account information and token validity status. It effectively distinguishes this diagnostic tool from operational siblings like nworks_board_create or nworks_mail_send by focusing on auth introspection rather than business operations.

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 states when to use: '인증 문제 진단 시 먼저 호출' (Call first when diagnosing authentication issues). This provides clear troubleshooting context, though it could explicitly mention using this before other tools when encountering 401/403 errors.

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