whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns the current username and notes a key behavioral implication: new dashboards are created under this profile. This adds context beyond the name, but it does not describe the response format, potential errors (e.g., if not authenticated), or any side effects. Since it's a read-only identity query, the information provided is adequate but not rich.

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 exceptionally concise – two short sentences that pack key information: the primary purpose and a critical contextual implication. Every word serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, and a single purpose), the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (username) and why it matters (dashboard creation context). The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the exact format of the output or behavior when no session exists, but this is a minor omission for such a simple 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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and behavior, earning a solid score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to show the Splunk username for the current session. It uses a specific verb 'Show' and resource 'Splunk username'. It also adds relevant context about new dashboards being created under this profile, which helps the agent understand the practical implication.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool – when you need to know the current username, particularly before creating dashboards. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. Given the sibling tools include splunk_login and various create tools, the usage context is implied but not fully developed.

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