Hyperstar Whoami

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: this is a preflight/identity probe that reveals scopes and capabilities, implying auth preconditions gate other tools. It does not document the response shape, but the preflight intent is the key disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the verb, the object, and the timing; no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With no params and a simple read-only operation, a one-liner is nearly sufficient, and it enumerates what is inspected (principal, workspace, scopes, capabilities). Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what the response returns would close the last gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by framing the tool as a pure inspection of the caller's own context.

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?

Specific verb ("Inspect") plus concrete resource ("authenticated Hyperstar principal, workspace, scopes, and capabilities"), which cleanly separates it from all the campaign/creator/inbox workflow siblings. An agent can identify this as the identity/context tool without opening any schema.

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?

"before running workflow tools" gives a clear timing/precondition for calling it, which is actionable guidance rather than a bare description. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases (e.g., that it is not needed for repeated calls within a session).

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