whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns identity, role, tenant, company, and access info, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not detail return format, permissions required, or potential side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the output, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains why to use it and what to expect. No additional details are necessary given 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?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, beyond the schema's structural information. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets it.

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 identity, role, tenant, company, and access. It effectively conveys what the tool does with specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clio_who_am_i' or 'monday_get_me', which may have overlapping purposes.

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 provides explicit use cases: understanding current context, debugging permission issues, and confirming selected company. It offers clear context but does not mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives.

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