whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the tool returns user info, implying a read-only operation, but it does not describe what specific information is returned (e.g., user ID, email, permissions) or how errors like invalid MCP keys are handled. It adds some context by mentioning 'via la clé MCP' but could be more explicit about behavior.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a use case. It lacks details on the exact return format, but given the trivial complexity, it is reasonably complete. It could mention error behavior or the exact fields returned, but this is not critical for a 'whoami' tool.

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 already fully covers this. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter-related semantics. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'retourne' and identifies the resource as 'les infos du user authentifié', making it clear this tool returns authenticated user info. It also adds the scoping detail 'via la clé MCP' (via MCP key), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that deal with rendering, publishing, and corpus operations.

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?

The phrase 'utile pour debug auth' explicitly gives a use case: debugging authentication. This provides clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but given there are no similar siblings, it is adequate.

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