warden__whoami

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only informational call but never states that it has no side effects, requires no authentication, or is safe to call at any time. The three return fields are named but not characterized (formats, sensitivity of the key fingerprint).

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?

It is a single fragment with zero waste, but it is a label rather than a sentence and lacks front-loaded structure. Terseness here shades into under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it gives an unexplained three-item list. Terms like 'pinned curator key fingerprint' and 'log root' are opaque to an agent that has not seen this system.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing 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 is a noun phrase listing three returned artifacts (node identity, pinned curator key fingerprint, log root) rather than a verb+resource statement. It does convey what information the tool surfaces and is distinguishable from siblings like warden__list or warden__trust, but it never says what the tool does (e.g., 'returns' or 'reports').

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus warden__list, warden__trust, or warden__audit, and no stated preconditions. An agent must infer usage from the name 'whoami' alone.

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