whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the BT_API_KEY requirement, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention rate limits, error conditions, or output shape. The read-only nature is strongly implied but not formally declared.

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 compact sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and the authentication requirement parenthetically appended. There is no filler or redundancy. Every element carries useful 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?

For a zero-parameter identity tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to know what the tool returns and what credential it requires. It does not describe the return format in detail, but the absence of an output schema means some leeway is reasonable. The core identity use case is adequately covered.

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 clarify beyond confirming the absence of inputs. Schema coverage is effectively complete because the parameter set is empty. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 identifies the resource as the account and bots associated with the current API key, making it recognizable as an identity/introspection tool. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the meaning is still clear. It does not need heavy sibling differentiation because no other sibling tool appears to serve the same identity purpose.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to discover the current API key's account and bots. The description does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple zero-parameter identity tool, the implied usage is adequate but not fully spelled out.

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