totvs_whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety profile is clear. Description adds behavioral context: the tool derives data from the token and returns specific fields (userId, customerCode, organizations, token validity), which goes beyond annotations but does not contradict them.

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?

Two short sentences in Portuguese: first states the tool's function, second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output (enumerating key fields) and provides actionable use guidance. It is complete for a simple identity retrieval tool.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. No parameter semantics needed; description adds no parameter info but that is acceptable.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves the logged-in user's identity (userId, customerCode, organizations, token validity) from the TOTVS portal token. It explicitly directs to use it for discovering available organization_ids and customerCode, which distinguishes it from sibling tools dealing with contacts, departments, tickets, etc.

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?

Description explicitly tells when to use: to discover organization_ids/customerCode. It provides clear context for an identity lookup tool, and no alternative is needed given its specific purpose.

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