whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read-only 'show' operation and lists the three pieces of information returned. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness, authentication requirements, or error behavior. This is acceptable but not thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word adds value, making it both concise and structured effectively.

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 no-parameter introspection tool, the description adequately covers the main purpose and specifies the three output fields. Without an output schema, it could be more explicit about the return format, but the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's low complexity.

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, and the schema is an empty object. Per guidelines, 0 params baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not, which is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('authenticated Achi Drive user, auth method, and whether the token has file-content access'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on files, folders, teams, or 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 implies use cases (checking current auth context) but provides no explicit when-to-use instructions or mention of alternatives. There is no direct guidance on when to prefer this tool over others, though the name and standard convention make the intent clear.

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