whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It states the tool 'Return's the authenticated agent and reveals the mechanism ('resolved from MOLTJOBS_API_KEY'), indicating a read-only operation tied to the API key. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the key detail about API key resolution, earning the highest score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is returned and how the identity is determined. A minor gap is that it does not describe the structure of the returned agent object, but this is not critical for a tool of this triviality.

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, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the empty schema is entirely sufficient.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'the authenticated agent', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_agent or list_agents. The parenthetical 'resolved from MOLTJOBS_API_KEY' further clarifies that this returns the current caller's identity, not an arbitrary agent.

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 the tool is used to retrieve the identity of the current authenticated agent, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_agent for a specific agent ID). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative guidance.

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