skool_whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the two behaviors (cookie check and community listing), implying a read-only operation. It does not mention error handling or response details, but for a whoami-style tool this is largely implied and acceptable.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical usage tip follows immediately. Ideal for a simple tool.

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 covers the essential purpose and usage context. It could mention expected output format (e.g., list of community names/IDs) or error behavior, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the explicit diagnostic hint.

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 is trivially complete. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information since none exists. It does not need to compensate.

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 purpose: to confirm cookie validity and list the user's communities. It clearly identifies the tool as an auth check combined with a listing operation, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_posts or list_courses.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call this first if other tools error, framing it as a diagnostic for auth/cookie problems. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and effectively positions it against the other tools.

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