team_whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only query ('Show your own role and capabilities… Tells you what you can do') and conveys a non-destructive, safe operation. It lacks explicit mention of authentication requirements or rate limits, but the scope is narrow and well-explained.

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 three tightly written sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds depth on output, and the third gives a concrete use-case instruction. It is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 no output schema, the description clarifies what the tool reports (role, capabilities, contact for upgrades). Among 80+ siblings, many are mutation-heavy (team_assign_role, get_instance) or exploratory (brain_graph). This description is self-contained for a simple identity query. Minor gap: no mention of error cases (e.g., instance not found) but adequate for standard use.

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 description coverage is 100%: both handle and instance_id have descriptions. The description goes beyond the schema by framing the tool's purpose and the instance as a 'shared brain instance'. It does not add specific parameter formatting or validation rules, but it orients the agent on how to interpret the parameters in context.

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 a clear verb ('Show') and specifies the resource ('your own role and capabilities on a shared brain instance'). It adds concrete detail about what is shown ('what you can do (store, review, manage roles)') and context about post-onboarding usage. Among sibling tools like team_assign_role or brain_who_knows, this description uniquely positions team_whoami as a self-identity check.

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 explicitly tells the agent or user to run this 'after onboarding to confirm your role was set correctly', providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also mentions 'who to contact if you need a higher role', which complements role-checking. This effectively distinguishes it from tools like team_assign_role (which modifies roles) or team_roster (which lists others).

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