nworks_whoami

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds only a minor behavioral detail: it checks token validity. It does not describe unauthenticated behavior or what exactly is returned, but for a safe read-only status check this is not critical.

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 short sentences with no redundant content: the first states the purpose, the second states the recommended invocation context. The core functional information is front-loaded.

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 diagnostic tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what account and token state it verifies and when to call it first. No output schema exists, but the stated output concept is sufficient for a whoami-style operation.

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 zero parameters, so there is no input ambiguity. The schema already fully addresses parameter semantics because there are none 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?

The description names a specific verb (checks) and a clear resource: the currently authenticated NAVER WORKS account and token validity. This distinguishes it from sibling auth-related tools like logout and setup of actual credentials.

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?

It explicitly says to call this first when diagnosing authentication issues, which is clear situational guidance. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the intent and placement among auth-related siblings make the intended use unambiguous.

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