zyta_expedientes_whoami

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens if the token is invalid, response structure, or side effects. For a simple read tool, more transparency on behavior would be beneficial.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without verbosity. It is concise but could be slightly more informative. No structural issues.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., user object or details). It does not, leaving the agent uninformed about the response. Additionally, there is no mention of authentication requirements or error handling.

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 input schema is empty with 0 parameters, achieving full schema coverage. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are required. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no need for additional parameter details.

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 states 'Usuario del token JWT' indicating the tool returns the user associated with the JWT token, and references 'GET /users' in Zyta-be. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose as a whoami endpoint for current user identity, distinguishing it from sibling tools like login or auth_status.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., being authenticated) or situations where it should not be used. The description lacks explicit usage context.

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