agent_whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the return surface (agent_id, role, capabilities, metadata, permissions, effective_policies + governance) and notes communication style is conditional ('when set'). It stops short of stating auth requirements or that the call is strictly non-mutating, but the self-read framing makes that clear.

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 plus a docs pointer; no waste. The field list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it will receive.

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?

For a parameterless self-profile read backed by an output schema and a docs link, this is essentially complete. The only soft gap is the absent explicit contrast with agent_get/agent_list.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The enumerated fields are extra value, though the output schema already documents returns.

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 ('Return') and a precisely scoped resource ('YOUR OWN profile'), and enumerates the fields returned. The 'YOUR OWN' framing cleanly distinguishes it from sibling agent_get/agent_list, which fetch other agents' records.

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?

Usage is implied by the self-scoped wording rather than stated. It never explicitly says to use agent_get for other agents or when this is preferable, so the agent must infer the routing from the sibling name.

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