weeek_whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description correctly implies a read-only operation without stating it explicitly. It doesn't mention potential failure modes like invalid tokens, but for a simple identity lookup, the behavioral expectations are reasonably clear.

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 two sentences, both highly informative. The first states the purpose and return shape; the second provides practical usage context. 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read-only tool, the description is essentially complete. It specifies the return values (id, name), the authentication source (API token), and a practical use case. There's little more it could add without being verbose.

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 100% schema coverage (empty object), so there's nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for no-param tools is appropriate here; the description adds the return content hint (id, name) which is helpful.

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 returns the current user (id, name) based on the API token. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but among list/manage tasks, this is a self-identifying action.

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 includes practical guidance: 'Useful to get your userId for assignments.' This tells the agent a concrete use case, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use. For a whoami-style tool, the purpose is self-evident.

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