Return the authenticated MarkupBase principal and any linked owner identity without changing state. Share the returned id only when another agent needs an assigneeId for request_review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| onBehalfOf | Yes | ||
| displayName | Yes | ||
| principalType | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'without changing state'. It adds value by revealing the return content includes 'linked owner identity' and by cautioning that the id should only be shared for request_review — behavioral nuance beyond the annotation.
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 tight sentences: the first states the action and its side-effect-free nature, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.
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 identity lookup with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and usage context. It even ties to a specific sibling tool (request_review), which is enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter syntax; its focus on the return value and usage is sufficient.
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?
Description states 'Return the authenticated MarkupBase principal and any linked owner identity' — a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling document/review tools, which are all about object operations or workflows.
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 'Share the returned id only when another agent needs an assigneeId for request_review', giving a concrete usage scenario. It doesn't mention alternatives, but no sibling tool serves this identity-returning purpose, so clear context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: comment creation vs. reply, review request vs. completion, thread status vs. comment, document read vs. list. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities, and descriptions clarify precise usage.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_comment, complete_review, create_document, get_document, list_documents, list_review_inbox, list_threads, publish_version, reply_to_thread, request_review, set_thread_status). whoami deviates slightly but is a standard, recognizable exception.
12 tools is well within the optimal 3-15 range and appropriately covers the document/review/thread domain without bloat or excessive abstraction. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the workflow.
Core lifecycle is covered: document creation/reading/versioning, review request/completion/inbox, and thread create/reply/status. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit document deletion or metadata update, but these do not hinder primary review workflows.