whoami

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states that it returns claims. It does not disclose the structure of the claims, error behavior when no practice is connected, or safety profile. The term 'id_token claims' gives some indication but not enough.

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 immediately states the action and target, with no superfluous wording.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and an ambiguous parameter, the description leaves gaps in understanding the exact return format and how to specify the practice. Given the context of FHIR tooling, more detail would be helpful.

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 single required parameter 'practice' has no schema description, and the description does not clarify what value should be passed (e.g., practice ID, API key). The phrase 'for a connected practice' hints at the context but does not define the parameter semantics.

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 'Return' with the resource 'id_token claims' and scope 'connected practice', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect_practice and list_practices.

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 description implies usage after a practice is connected, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others or mention any exclusions. It could benefit from a reference to connect_practice.

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