whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only listing used as a connectivity check, which is useful context, but it doesn't mention side effects (none expected), authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens on connection failure.

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 with no wasted words. It states the purpose and method compactly.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and existence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description is adequate but thin: it could clarify expected output or error conditions for a connectivity check, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'list_picklist'.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are 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 action: sanity-check the Acumulus connection by listing the account picklist. This clearly tells an agent what the tool does, though the name 'whoami' suggests identity introspection rather than a connection check, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_picklist'.

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 phrase 'sanity-check the Acumulus connection' implies when to use it (to verify connectivity), but there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'acumulus_request' or 'list_picklist', nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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