sprrint_whoami

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and adds the 'signed-in' context, but it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or return format. This is adequate for a simple whoami but thin.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place; it states the subject, verb, and object clearly.

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 is zero-parameter and low-complexity, and the description states its core purpose. However, since there is no output schema, the description leaves the exact shape of the returned user and workspace data to inference, making it slightly less than fully 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 input schema has zero parameters and no required fields, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 ('Show') and resource ('signed-in Sprrint user and workspace'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which claim to return current user/workspace 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The only implicit hint is the word 'signed-in', which suggests checking authentication context, but the description never states when to call it.

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