whoami

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that it needs no scope and by positioning it as a diagnostic first step, which is useful beyond the structured annotation data. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first states what the tool shows, and the second gives one actionable usage instruction. Every clause 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?

For a simple, zero-required-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, and the auth prerequisite. The schema covers the optional format switch, and the annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter, format, is fully documented in the input schema with enum values, a default, and an explanation of text versus json output. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter detail; baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the exact resource and outputs: the GlitchTip instance, acting user, instance version, and token scopes. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling resource-listing tools such as list_organizations and get_organization.

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 states when to call this tool first ('when a tool fails with a permission error') and notes that no scope is required. It does not name alternatives or when-not cases, but for this identity/diagnostic tool that is a minor omission.

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