whoami

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by declaring exactly what identity-related data is surfaced, including a permissions summary and data-protection status, which helps an agent understand the response content beyond mere safety hints.

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 that enumerates the returned identity facets without any filler. Every phrase contributes directly to understanding what the tool reports.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description effectively serves as a return-value summary by naming the identity facets it reports. Combined with full schema coverage for the only parameter and strong annotations, the definition is nearly complete, though it could explicitly mention the optional environment parameter's effect.

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 the single optional environment parameter is well documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'active environment' as part of the output but does not add semantics about the environment parameter (such as default behavior or naming), so it meets the baseline without adding value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and precisely names the resource: the acting identity for this session. It further enumerates the exact facets returned (user, role, permissions, environment, data-protection status), so an agent can instantly distinguish it from sibling tools like security_posture_summary or verify_zosmf_connection.

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 'for this session' implies usage context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent can infer that this is the tool for identity introspection, but the definition does not route it against any sibling.

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