whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '查看' implies a non-mutating read, and the output schema covers the returned structure, but the description says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the result is scoped to the caller's identity, or what happens with an empty Hub.

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 that covers both output facets without filler. It is efficient, though it could have spent a few more words on the `agent` parameter instead of leaving it undocumented.

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?

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, which lowers the bar. However, for a one-parameter identity tool with zero schema description coverage, the description leaves the parameter's behavior and the read-only/no-side-effect guarantee implicit rather than stated.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the sole parameter `agent` (string, default empty) is never mentioned in the description. It is unclear whether passing `agent` switches identity, filters the overview, or is merely an optional lookup target — a meaningful gap for a tool whose whole purpose is identity resolution.

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 (查看/view) with two concrete resources: the current default identity and an overview of registered owners/sub-agents in the Hub. This distinguishes it from the pure-roster siblings like list_agents and team_status, though it never explicitly acknowledges the overlap.

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 guidance on when to call whoami versus list_agents, team_status, or set_master — all of which appear to surface related identity/agent information. The agent must infer selection from the terse purpose statement alone.

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