reddit_whoami

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description reveals that the tool never returns secrets or tokens, that no write code exists in the server, and that the user performs all Reddit actions manually. This gives an agent concrete expectations about side effects and data exposure, and it aligns 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 identity statement, no-secrets guarantee, and call-first instruction are front-loaded and each earn their place. The final policy paragraph is broader than the tool's function and could arguably live at a higher level, but it is not wasted because it explains the promotion-policy context mentioned in the first sentence.

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 no-argument status tool with an output schema, the description covers authentication status, policy mode, safety guarantees, and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify in the description, and none are needed.

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 a clear verb and resource: it shows which Reddit account the server is authenticated as and the current promotion policy mode. This is unambiguous and not tautological, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as policy_status, so it stops one step short of full 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call this first when unsure whether authentication is set up. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter identity/status check, no obvious alternative is needed.

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