whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the two pieces of state returned (active municipality, token configuration), which implies a read-only diagnostic, but never states that it is non-mutating, what permissions it needs, or whether it makes a network call. Minimum viable for a trivial zero-param tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary output and adds the token-check detail second. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what comes back, and it does name both return values. It could specify the response format (e.g. booleans, string names), but for a trivial state-check tool it is essentially complete.

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 schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies since no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 gives a concrete verb and two specific outputs: it shows the active municipality and whether GECOR_TOKEN is configured. This is clearer than the bare name 'whoami' and distinguishes it from setters like set_ayuntamiento. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which alternative to prefer. Usage is only implied by the fact that it reports current state. An agent gets no routing guidance versus list_ayuntamientos or set_ayuntamiento.

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