tenki_whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the performance trait 'Cheap', which is not in the annotations, providing useful extra behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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?

Two short sentences with the main action front-loaded and the use-case hint appended. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with strong annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is sufficient. It states what is returned, the scope (current API key), and a key characteristic (cheap). No additional information is needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema is trivially complete. The baseline is 4, and the description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('identity and workspaces for the current API key'), which distinguishes it from most sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the closely named 'tenki_auth_status', leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.

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?

It provides a contextual use case ('Cheap credential test') implying when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools. This is adequate but not explicit guidance.

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