rport_whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is returned (user and groups), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects. The whoami name strongly implies a safe query, so this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the tool's core purpose. There is no filler, redundant information, or repetition of the tool name beyond its semantic content.

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 zero-parameter identity tool, the description covers the essential information: the authenticated user and group membership. It does not describe the exact response format, and there is no output schema, but the simplicity of a whoami operation makes this gap minor.

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 confirms it needs no inputs by focusing entirely on the identity and group output. With no parameters to document, the description provides as much parameter-related clarity as needed.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning the authenticated RPort user and their group memberships, which is distinct from the sibling tools that list clients, tunnels, or status. It lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'returns,' but the whoami name and description make the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies this tool is for checking the current authenticated user's identity and group memberships, and the name 'whoami' reinforces that. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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