whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral-transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only introspection and specifies what is returned, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid or expired tokens, nor does it explicitly state that no side effects occur.

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 with no filler. The core scope ('session (user + org)') is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both input semantics and return content. The only notable omission is error/edge-case behavior for invalid tokens, which is a minor gap for such a simple read-only operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'token' parameter is the caller's authentication token and the basis for the session lookup. However, it does not specify token format or how the token is expected to be supplied, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('session (user + org)') tied to token authentication, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from the sibling note_* tools, which all handle note 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 description gives clear context: use this when you need to know which user and org a token authenticates as. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps with this identity-resolution task, so the missing exclusion is low-risk.

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