schoolpass_whoami

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints, and the description does not contradict them. It adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that it may run the login bootstrap on first use, which an agent would not infer from the schema alone.

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 tight sentences: the first states what is returned, and the second discloses the bootstrap side effect. No filler, no repetition of schema data, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter, read-only identity tool, the description is complete: it names the returned fields, references the authentication context, and covers the only relevant behavioral nuance (login bootstrap). The lack of an output schema is mitigated because the return values are explicitly listed.

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 and there is no parameter-description burden to meet. The description wisely focuses on return contents rather than inventing unnecessary parameter detail.

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 names the verb ('Return'), the resource ('the parent account this server is signed in as'), and the exact payload fields (member id, user type, name). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_profile or list_students, since it specifically targets the server's current authenticated identity.

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 context is clear: this is the tool to call when you need the server's signed-in parent identity. It also hints at a bootstrap behavior ('Runs the login bootstrap if it has not run yet'), which gives useful sequencing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention an alternative sibling.

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