cork_who_am_i

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the call reflects the authenticated session context, which is useful. It doesn't describe the return format or whether this can fail on invalid credentials, but for a zero-parameter identity check the gap is modest.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and follows with a practical use case. Zero wasted words.

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 no-parameter read-only identity tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and a usage scenario. The only omission is the return shape, but that is minor given the tool's simplicity and the sibling list makes its distinct role clear.

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 description has nothing to document. Baseline 4 applies, and the description adds relevant context by naming what the returned info covers (identity, role, scope).

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?

States a specific verb (get) and a clear resource (authenticated Cork user), and enumerates the exact fields returned (identity, role, partner/distributor scope). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which target specific resources like clients, partners, or invoices rather than the caller's own identity.

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?

Offers a concrete use case ('quick credential sanity check'), which implies the tool verifies the current session. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though no sibling is a genuine alternative since all others query different resources.

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