wattpad_whoami

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the tool performs a live authenticated check, deliberately distrusts the configured username, and emits warnings on account mismatch. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, behavioral notes, and return value are each covered in a few short sentences. Every line contributes useful information with no filler.

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 parameterless, read-only whoami tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and return format completely. The agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no additional parameter documentation is 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 states a specific verb and resource: verify against Wattpad that the session is valid and identify its owner. It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_user or list_my_works by focusing on session validation rather than fetching user data or content.

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 clear operational context: always call an authenticated endpoint, ignore the configured WATTPAD_USERNAME value, and warn if the cookie belongs to a different account. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is evident.

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