wisdom_whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It successfully communicates that this is an introspection/connectivity check rather than a mutation, and it discloses the surfaced information. It could go further by stating it has no side effects or describing failure behavior, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'verify' and 'shows.'

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the trigger and purpose, and the second enumerates the output contents. Every word earns its place.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it explains when to call it, what it verifies, and what information it returns. An agent can invoke this tool with full confidence about its expected behavior.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about argument semantics. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; the description appropriately focuses on behavior instead of parameters.

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 specific action — 'verify agent identity and gateway connectivity' — and lists exactly what will be shown: agent identity, project context, and gateway configuration. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wisdom_get_agent or wisdom_get_project, which target individual resources.

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 gives an explicit, actionable trigger: 'Call this at the start of each session.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the timing instruction is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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