Discogs: who am I

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output fields but lacks any mention of authentication requirements, failure modes, or side effects. For a simple read operation, it provides basic transparency but is not rich in behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary wording. It front-loads the verb and lists the expected return fields, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 identity check, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and for whom. It lacks mention of what happens if the user is not authenticated, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it.

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 empty and fully covered. Per the rubric baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds context that the operation concerns the currently authenticated user, but there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 returns the Discogs identity (username, id, resource_url) of the currently authenticated user. The verb 'Return' is specific, and the resource is explicitly defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle releases, listings, and other 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The tool's uniqueness among siblings implies its usage (e.g., to verify the authenticated user), but the description does not state this explicitly or mention any exclusions.

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