memory_whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully lists the fields returned (client id, project, session, node, LLM, graph-db, resource plan), but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation or disclose any auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, with the alias note placed first. The final 'Alias: memory_whoami' sentence is slightly redundant with the tool name, keeping it from being maximally concise.

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 simple, zero-parameter identity tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, the alias relationship, and the returned fields. It stops short of explaining the return format or confirming read-only safety, but those are minor gaps for this tool type.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly does not add parameter semantics beyond what an empty schema already communicates.

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?

It states a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('this MCP client against the MemoryIndustry daemon'), and enumerates the exact identity fields returned. The alias note distinguishes it from other sibling tools by tying it explicitly to cuba_whoami.

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 purpose implies when to use it—to retrieve client identity context—but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion criteria, and no guidance on alternatives among the many sibling tools. It is adequate but leaves routing inference to the agent.

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