clio_who_am_i

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

The description mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke under JWT/tenant/company scope, providing some authentication context. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, destructive, return format) beyond what is implied by the name. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 short (two sentences plus one line) but not optimally structured. It front-loades the name and routing, but the parameter section is vague. It is acceptably concise but sacrifices completeness.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks context about the operation's behavior, prerequisites, or typical use, making it minimally complete for a simple introspection tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying valid keys or structure. This adds no meaningful semantic value, leaving the agent without guidance on how to form arguments.

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 identifies the tool as a 'who_am_i' operation, implying it returns current user info, but does not explicitly state what the tool does or how it differs from sibling tools like 'whoami' or other Clio tools. The purpose is implied but not clearly defined.

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. With siblings like 'whoami' (different casing) and numerous Clio tools, the description offers no context for selection.

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