cuba_whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It lists useful output fields and the identity-check purpose, but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or what permissions are needed.

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 that identifies the tool's function and key return fields. The alias note at the end is short and earns its place by cross-referencing the sibling name.

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 no-argument, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, lists the returned identity fields, and provides the alias. Only explicit usage guidance is missing.

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 description correctly does not discuss parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool has a baseline of 4 for this dimension.

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 and resource: 'Identify this MCP client against the MemoryIndustry daemon.' It lists the identity fields returned, making the tool's scope clear. It does not differentiate from most siblings beyond noting the memory_whoami alias, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The alias note helps an agent recognize the equivalent memory_whoami tool, but no conditions or alternatives are described.

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