whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read-only' clearly signals that the tool performs no mutation, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format or any edge cases, leaving some behavioral detail implicit.

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 short clauses with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key identity information and then adds the read-only qualification, making it appropriately sized and efficiently structured.

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 tool, the description is essentially complete: it names the exact object (the signed-in Telegram account) and the safety profile. It stops short of describing the returned fields, but an agent can confidently invoke it without ambiguity.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is missing.

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 what the tool reports: the Telegram account the server is signed in as. This distinguishes it from the sibling chat, message, and folder tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Return'.

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 'Read-only' flag and 'this server is signed in as' scope imply a safe identity-lookup use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative conditions. No sibling tool has the same purpose, so the omission is minor.

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