blacksmith_whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behaviors: reporting the session owner and verifying that authentication is live. It doesn't detail error handling or the exact output format, but for a simple whoami this is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: it states what the tool returns and why it matters.

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 trivial, no-parameter auth-check tool, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose ('who the session belongs to') and the verification aspect ('verifies auth is live'). No output schema exists, but the return intent is clearly implied.

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 an empty input schema, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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 the tool as an identity/auth check: 'Who the stored Blacksmith session belongs to' is a specific, useful purpose. It also distinguishes itself from all sibling cost/usage tools, which are unrelated to session identity.

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 parenthetical '(verifies auth is live)' gives a clear context for when to use the tool—checking that authentication is active. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions, but no sibling tool serves a similar auth-checking purpose, so the guidance is sufficient.

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