glubler_whoami

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

With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'check connection status' but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it fails without authentication, or any side effects. It lacks safety and error-handling context beyond the bare action.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core verb ('Check') and resource. No redundant wording or filler; every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The description is adequate for a parameterless whoami but lacks specificity about the returned 'details'. Without an output schema, the agent does not know what fields will be present (e.g., user ID, name, email). It could benefit from stating the nature of the returned data, though the purpose is generally understood.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything vacuously (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on the operation and return value. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to clarify.

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 states a clear, specific purpose: 'Check connection status and return details of the currently authenticated Glubler user.' It uses a distinct verb ('check'/'return') and a precise resource ('currently authenticated user'), which differentiates it from login/logout (auth state changes) and other glubler operations (catalog, details, etc.).

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 its usage (checking who is authenticated) but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like glubler_login or glubler_logout, nor does it state when not to use it. For a simple whoami tool, the purpose strongly suggests the context, but explicit routing is absent.

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