whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well by disclosing privacy-relevant behavior: confirmation requires no disclosure, disclosure only collapses same-operator handles, and the opaque id is never exposed. It does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free, but the AUTH/status framing makes non-mutation 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 dense but compact, front-loading the AUTH purpose before the privacy behavior. The single sentence is efficient, though it packs in several domain-specific terms like 'write gate' and 'operator-linkage' that make it slightly harder to parse.

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 status tool, the description is largely complete: it names the three pieces of information returned and clarifies the important privacy boundaries. It does not address invalid-token or missing-auth behavior, but that is a minor gap for a whoami-style endpoint.

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 schema already provides complete coverage and the description has no parameter burden to bear. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter information.

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 states exactly what the tool reports: the Colony identity inferred from the Bearer token, write-gate clearance, and operator-linkage status. This is specific and clearly distinct from the sibling get_* tools, which target other resources.

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?

Usage context is implied by the AUTH prefix and the focus on the current Bearer token: an agent should use this when it needs to know its own identity or authorization status. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it.

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