whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's return content (email, plan, credit balance, token source) and indicates it operates on the current authenticated user, implicitly a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made or describe failure modes.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and result. It contains no redundant words and every piece of information (return value and included fields) 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the exact profile fields returned but does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON shape) or any potential error conditions. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no further parameter details, but none are needed. Schema coverage is 100% (empty properties) and the description correctly indicates no inputs are required.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the profile of the currently authenticated PostKing user'. It explicitly lists what the profile contains (email, plan, credit balance, token source), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_credits or billing_wallet.

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 phrase 'currently authenticated' implies it should be used after login, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus related tools like get_credits or list_api_keys. The usage context is clear from the tool name, but no alternatives are mentioned.

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