hpc_whoami

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It states the output fields but does not explicitly declare read-only or safe behavior. The name 'whoami' implies no side effects, but the description could be more transparent about being non-destructive and requiring no special permissions. Adequate but not explicit.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with key data types. Every phrase adds value.

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 zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells exactly what information is returned. It could mention the output schema exists, but that is structured data. Overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4 per guidelines. Description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed. Schema coverage is 100% for zero params, so no gap.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns identity, groups, login node, and home directory on the DTU cluster. It distinguishes from siblings like hpc_jobs or hpc_quota by specifying the type of information returned. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve', but the noun list is sufficient.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it returns, not when it is appropriate. Given the sibling tools include many task-specific ones, the agent would benefit from a note like 'Use to get current user context before submitting jobs or checking quotas.'

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