whoami

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

Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns identity information but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or disclose side effects. The return format and example add some context, but lacks details on error cases (e.g., when no user is logged in).

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 concise, with three clear sections: purpose, return format, and example. The example is useful but the 'Returns:' line slightly repeats the first sentence. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and typical return value. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., user must be logged in) and error handling. Acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the example with empty parentheses implicitly confirms no arguments are needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema already covers everything.

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 clearly states the tool shows the currently logged-in Globus identity, distinguishing it from sibling tools like globus_login (which handles authentication) and compute_login (which manages compute sessions). The verb 'show' combined with the specific resource 'current Globus identity' provides precise purpose.

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 description implies usage for checking the current identity but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., globus_login for initiating login). No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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