whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's read-only nature implicitly ("Report") and details the base URL selection logic (site URL vs cloud-ID fallback). However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, which would be a slight improvement.

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 the primary purpose stated in the first sentence and return details and usage guidance following logically. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy, and the structure front-loads the core function.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description fully covers its function, return content, and a specific usage scenario. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds significant value by specifying exactly what information is returned (display name, email, account ID, base URL), going beyond the empty schema and enriching the agent's understanding.

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 reports the authenticated Atlassian account, listing specific return fields (display name, email, account ID, base URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication, not issues or comments.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call this tool first when other tools return authentication or permission errors, providing a clear when-to-use directive. This guidance helps agents isolate credential vs. resource problems, which is directly actionable.

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