arim_whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '조회한다' indicates a read-only operation, and the description lists what is returned. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior when not logged in, or other operational details, so transparency 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 a single compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the most important output, login status, and immediately explains the relevance of monitorId, making every phrase useful.

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-argument tool with no output schema, the description reasonably conveys the main return areas: login state, current monitorId, and system settings. The term 'system settings' is somewhat vague, but in the context of sibling tools and the whoami-like name, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the calibration baseline, 0 params warrants a 4.

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 verb (조회한다, 'queries') and the exact resources it returns: current login status, the monitorId used as a filter basis, and system settings. This clearly separates it from sibling mutation tools like arim_login and arim_logout, which perform authentication actions rather than reading current context.

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 supplies clear contextual guidance by identifying that the returned monitorId serves as the basis for query filters, implying this tool should be called before filter-based data queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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