deputy_whoami

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

Annotations already signal read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context: markdown vs JSON output, the exact JSON fields, clocked_in being a bool, calendar_url being nullable, and the special iCal mode with no API identity.

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 well organized with clear paragraphs for purpose, usage, and return behavior. Some redundancy exists between the opening summary and the later markdown/JSON explanation, but each section adds detail and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple, one-optional-parameter read-only tool, this description covers the key aspects: what it returns, when to run it, when not to use it, alternatives, and a non-obvious iCal limitation. The output schema also exists to carry return-type details, so 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single response_format parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what json mode returns, including the object shape and field types, which is not fully captured by the schema's 'raw records' phrasing.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify the Deputy connection and confirm which identity the token uses.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling schedule/people-reading tools by stating 'this only checks the connection and identity.'

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Run this first to confirm setup before other tools.' The description also states when not to use it and names alternatives: 'to read schedules or people (use deputy_get_my_roster or deputy_get_employee_info).'

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