whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the output structure ('Expected output: { handle, email, plans: [...] }') and indicates a read-only, identity-introspection behavior. It doesn't discuss failure modes or authentication requirements, but for a simple whoami tool the core behavior is 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?

Three short, labeled sentences: 'Do what', 'Expected output', and a usage warning. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, information is front-loaded, and there is no wasted text. This is a model of concise, structured tool documentation.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description fully equips an agent: it provides the return shape venue and the exact scenario (permissions errors, create_new_file prerequisite) in which this tool must be called. Nothing critical is missing for successful invocation.

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和一 empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it adds no irrelevant parameter information. The expected output structure actually compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource: the authenticated user identity (handle, email), plans/teams, and available seats. It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like figma_auth_status or get_current_context by naming the exact payload elements.

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 'MUST call this if experiencing permission errors or before calling create_new_file to resolve planKey.' This gives a clear, actionable trigger. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the directive is strong enough for an agent to know when it is the right tool.

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