whoami

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the key behavior: it reads the FIGMA_TOKEN credential and returns the account behind it, which implies a read-only, non-mutating call. It omits what happens on an invalid or missing token (error vs. empty result) and does not characterize the response payload, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the credential check before the returned account. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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, side-effect-free identity probe with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what credential is used and what comes back conceptually. The remaining gap is the concrete shape of the returned account object, which the description leaves unspecified because no output schema exists to cover 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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the token comes from the environment (FIGMA_TOKEN) rather than from an argument, which is a genuinely useful clarification for a no-arg tool.

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?

"Проверяет FIGMA_TOKEN и возвращает аккаунт" names a specific verb (check/validate) and a specific resource (the token and its owning account). No sibling tool performs identity or token validation, so the agent can distinguish it from get_metadata, get_plugin_status, or rate_limit_status without opening a schema. It loses a point only because it never contrasts itself with those siblings explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the call to make to verify credentials or identify the current account, likely before other operations. There is no explicit "use when" / "do not use when" statement and no named alternative, so the routing signal is left to inference.

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