whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares the read-only nature, then provides exhaustive documentation of return values including field semantics (what the boolean means) and complete JSON examples for both possible response states (bound vs unbound).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only guarantee. While the JSON examples are lengthy, they are necessary compensation for the missing output schema and structured formatting prevents clutter. Only minor verbosity in the example spacing prevents a 5.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description achieves completeness by documenting the exact response structure and providing concrete examples of both possible return states. It fully prepares the agent to interpret results without needing additional schema information.

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 input schema has zero parameters, which per the evaluation rules establishes a baseline score of 4. No parameter documentation is required or present.

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 specific verb ('Query') with a clear resource ('API Key binding status'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'bootstrap' tool by stating when to use that alternative ('call bootstrap to bind'), clearly defining its scope as read-only status checking.

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?

Provides explicit conditional guidance: if 'client_id_bound=false' then 'call bootstrap to bind'. It clearly states the tool is read-only and 'does NOT modify any state', helping the agent distinguish this query tool from mutation alternatives in the sibling list.

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