Whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states this is a read-only identity lookup, which implies no side effects. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the identity includes roles, email, or other attributes, or whether authentication is required. For a simple identity tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No wasted words, no repetition of the title. It earns its place entirely.

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 is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (the identity of the authenticated user). The only minor gap is not specifying the shape of the identity object, but without an output schema, a bit more detail could help. Still, for such a simple tool, this is strong.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output concept (the user's identity) rather than inputs. No deduction 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('the currently authenticated POLITEMall user's identity'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch courses, grades, announcements, etc., by focusing on the authenticated user's identity rather than any domain 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 usage context: call it when you need the current user's identity, which is a common prerequisite for personalization or authorization. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the distinction clear enough. A small deduction for not explicitly stating exclusions.

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