octri_whoami

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe, read-only identity check and that the returned project reflects session state, but it never states that the call has no side effects, what happens when no project is selected, or any auth/permission requirements. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the call-to-action. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. It falls slightly short on edge-case behavior (empty project selection, failure modes), but is close to complete for a tool this simple.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional project_id is fully documented in the schema, including the CLI-selected fallback, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase 'currently selected project' loosely echoes the fallback behavior but adds no new syntax or override semantics.

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 enumerates exactly what is returned — user, org, plan, API URL, selected project — which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like octri_list_projects or octri_get_sdk_settings. It is less a verb+resource statement than a return-value inventory, and it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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?

'Call this first to confirm which environment the session is pointed at' gives a clear, actionable directive on when to invoke it. It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it, but for a session-introspection tool the positive guidance is strong.

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