aamio_whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the inbox address is 'current' and explains the hash prefix's practical purpose, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or response shape.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource name, and the parenthetical about the address book adds real context without bloat. Every clause earns its place.

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 lookup, the description covers the essential return values and even explains the hash prefix's practical meaning. It could specify the response format more explicitly, but with annotations covering safety and no input required, nothing critical is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema already reflects that with an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter detail is missing.

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 names a specific resource ('your own aamio identity') and enumerates the exact fields returned: public key, hash prefix, current inbox address, and tags. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling aamio_partners by stressing 'your own,' but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'return.'

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?

It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions and names no alternative tools. The phrase 'your own' implies it is for self-identity rather than partner identities, but the agent is left to infer the distinction.

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