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 description's 'nothing changes' largely echoes them. It does add value by listing the concrete return fields (name, Id, position, department), which is meaningful since there is no output schema; it just doesn't cover auth or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the trigger condition; nothing is wasted for such a simple tool.

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 no-arg read tool with no output schema, the description is essentially complete: it names the returned fields and the calling condition. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, though it could not be richer.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4; the description confirms 'no parameters,' which is trivially consistent with the empty schema. No additional semantic burden 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 states a specific verb+resource ('who is the current user in Directum RX') and enumerates exactly what is returned (name, Id, position, department). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rx_find_employees, which search for other people rather than identifying the caller.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call first if it's unknown on whose behalf work is being done.' This tells the agent the condition that should trigger the tool. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the context is clear.

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