Whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait beyond the schema — that this doubles as a session-validity check — but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether an invalid session raises an error, or rate/refresh considerations.

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 conveys the operation and its secondary diagnostic purpose with zero 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and all four optional parameters are documented in the schema. What remains missing is minor behavioral detail (failure/auth semantics) rather than anything blocking correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and no parameters are required, so the schema already documents host/port/scheme/profile thoroughly. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: query the current logged-in user's info (查询当前登录用户信息). The scoping to 'current logged-in user' implicitly distinguishes it from user_info/user_list, but it does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 parenthetical '(验证 session 有效性)' gives a clear use case — checking whether the session is still valid — but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over status_overview, login, or user_info, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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