focus_whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only return operation and the authentication context, but it does not disclose details like the default of include_settings or reliance on cached context, which are left to the schema.

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, focused sentence with no superfluous content. 'Not Track' is a necessary disambiguator and earns its place.

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 simple whoami-style tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level information about returned data. It could be more explicit about workspace/organization context, but the parameter defaults imply the connection.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter explanations, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level information beyond what is already in the schema.

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 ('return') and identifies a clear resource ('account metadata and user settings'). It distinguishes itself from Toggl Track via 'Not Track' and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like focus_get_workspace_context.

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 description implies usage as a whoami-style lookup for Focus account info, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. The 'Not Track' note clarifies product scope but provides no concrete alternative comparisons or exclusionary guidance.

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