whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently describes the returned information (token owner, timezone, today's date) and implies a safe, read-only identity check. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify data,' but the described behavior strongly conveys that.

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 two purposeful sentences: the first states the output, the second states when to call it. Every element earns its place, and the key behavioral info 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 identity/context tool with an output schema present, this is complete. It covers what the tool returns and when the agent should use it, and the output schema handles return-value structure.

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 schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description sensibly adds no unnecessary parameter detail, and the phrase 'the Kimai API token' makes it clear the invocation relies on the already-authenticated token.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: the identity behind the Kimai API token, the user's timezone, and today's date. It is clearly distinct from the sibling time-tracking tools, which list or mutate timesheet data.

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 explicitly says to call this once at the start of a time-logging conversation so relative dates like 'yesterday' are anchored correctly. This gives the agent a clear, actionable trigger for when to invoke it.

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