overleaf_whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it reports both account and instance, which is useful identity-scoping context, but it doesn't say whether it fails when unauthenticated or what happens in a multi-instance setup. The output schema covers return values, lowering the burden.

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?

One short sentence with zero padding, front-loading the verb and the exact information returned. Nothing here is redundant with the title or schema.

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, read-only identity tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the tool reports and implicitly why it exists. The only gap is not stating the failure/error condition when no session exists, which is minor given the output schema.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('which Overleaf account and instance the tools are signed in to'), which is precise enough that an agent can distinguish it from every sibling, all of which operate on files, projects, or comments. It stops short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly frame this as a session/auth check.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this tool is for verifying identity or checking which instance/account is active before performing other operations. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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