mhlb_whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing expected return fields, but it doesn't disclose anything about side effects, potential errors, or request behavior beyond what the annotations imply. The tool is simple and read-only, so this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose and lists fields without redundancy; the second provides a use case. No wasted words.

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, read-only tool with annotations providing safety context, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (fields) and when to use it (session check). It lacks an explicit return format, but without an output schema and given the simple nature, this is minor.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the schema has nothing to clarify. Nothing is needed beyond the field list provided.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'signed-in My Hot Lunchbox account', and enumerates the specific fields returned (name, email, role, etc.). It also indicates a distinct use case as a session check, which differentiates it from siblings focused on orders, transactions, or students.

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 instruction 'Start here to confirm the session works' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool first. It provides clear usage context without needing to name alternatives, as this is a unique initial verification step. It could be more explicit about not using it for other purposes, but the guidance is sufficient.

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