htb_whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read operation (validate and return) with no mention of side effects, error behavior on invalid token, auth requirements beyond the token itself, or rate limits. The description is accurate but minimally transparent.

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 sentence of 12 words, no wasted content. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word earns its place.

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 params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose. However, it does not describe the return value structure (e.g., format or fields of the profile), leaving the agent to infer. This is a minor gap but acceptable for a minimal tool.

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 the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. It correctly describes the tool's action without parameter details.

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 validates the API token and returns the authenticated account profile. The verb 'Validate' and 'return' specify the action, and 'API token' and 'HTB account profile' specify the resource. Among siblings like htb_user_profile, which likely requires a username, this tool's no-parameter design and focus on the current user differentiate it effectively.

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 implies use when needing to verify the current token and get the authenticated user's profile. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you need another user's profile, use htb_user_profile) or mention alternatives. The guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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