rx_whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is structured data; the description's 'ничего не меняет' only echoes it. The real added value is the disclosure of the return payload (identity fields plus substitution lookup), which matters because there is no output 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, followed by the usage trigger and the no-parameter/no-mutation note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent gets back and when to reach for it. There is no remaining ambiguity that would cause a wrong invocation.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly confirms 'Параметров нет', which matches the empty schema with additionalProperties: false. Nothing more needs to be said about parameter meaning.

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 states a concrete question (who is the current Directum RX user) and enumerates exactly what is returned: name, Id, position, department, and current substitution from the «Замещения» reference. No sibling in the list does the same thing, so an agent can identify this tool's role immediately.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: call it first when it is unknown on whose behalf work is being performed. This is strong positive guidance, but no alternatives or exclusions are named (for example, resolving another employee by name via rx_find_employees), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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