blackboard_whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — no mention of what identity data is returned, whether auth is required, or what happens when the session is invalid.

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?

It is a single short fragment with zero padding, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than concise — a bare label with no verb or qualifying clause. Structure is front-loaded but incomplete.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation coverage of return values, the description should at minimum say what the call yields (user id, name, roles). For a whoami/identity tool whose entire value is the returned identity, omitting that leaves a real gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It also introduces no parameter-like concepts that would need explanation.

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 is a noun phrase identifying the resource ('Usuario autenticado en Aula Virtual UP') rather than a verb+resource statement, so the agent must infer that the tool returns/identifies the currently authenticated user. It does not distinguish this from siblings like blackboard_login or blackboard_system_version. Purpose is inferable but vague.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: it doesn't say to call this to verify an active session, after blackboard_login, or as a prerequisite for other calls. No alternatives or exclusions are named despite several session-related siblings.

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