Whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool reports the current user and access size, which implies a read-only introspection operation. However, it does not explicitly mention absence of side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the result changes across the session.

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, sentence-long description that directly answers 'who/what does this do' with no fluff or repetition. Every part contributes, and it is appropriately short for a zero-parameter introspection 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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and behavior. The phrase 'tamanho do acesso' is a bit vague, but given the output schema would define the exact shape, the context is effectively complete.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%. There are no parameters requiring additional semantics, and the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description adds no missing parameter information, but none 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?

Description states the tool identifies the current user and the extent of their access, with a specific verb and resource. It is clear enough to distinguish from the unrelated sibling tools (routine/operation management), though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 intended context is clearly implied: use it to determine the authenticated caller and their access level. There are no overlapping sibling tools that need exclusion, so the described context is adequate, though it never explicitly says when to use versus alternatives.

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