whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only, status-reporting behavior (no mutation hints), though it omits explicit safety flags. The reported items are clear enough for an agent to infer no side effects.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and lists outputs briefly.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It lists three distinct categories (version, status, capabilities), which is adequate. However, 'capabilities' is somewhat vague and could benefit from examples. Overall, it covers the core functionality.

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?

There are no parameters (empty schema with 100% coverage). The description appropriately does not need to add param information, earning the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Report' and lists concrete items: server version, browser/login status, capabilities. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like health_check (which likely just checks connectivity) and profile tools (which have parameters).

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 that this tool is for checking current session and server info, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like health_check or get_my_profile. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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