get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context by enumerating the response fields, including write_gate, which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss authentication or session requirements.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes either to identifying the resource or listing its output fields, making it appropriately sized for such a simple 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could be more explicit about what 'current' refers to (e.g., the active session or selected account) and clarify the domain terms like 'ton/eur/stars', but the tool's low complexity makes these gaps minor.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing missing at the schema level. The description sensibly focuses on clarifying what the returned data contains, which is the relevant semantic information for an agent.

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 identifies 'current cabinet card' as the resource and lists the returned fields (owner_id, cabinet, currency, balance, write_gate), so an agent can tell it is a getter for the active account. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like list_accounts, but the 'current' scoping provides some differentiation.

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 word 'Current' implies this tool is for reading the currently active/selected cabinet rather than listing or switching accounts. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_account over siblings like list_accounts or select_account, or what session state is required.

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