auth_whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: it is read-only, it uses the server-configured API key and token rather than per-call credentials, and its output is a member identity. It stops short of saying what happens when credentials are invalid (error vs empty), which would round this out.

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 with no filler, front-loaded with the usage cue and ending on the precise object of the call. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, its read-only nature, and the fact that it reads server-configured credentials. Only the failure behavior and the distinction from auth_token_info are missing.

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?

There is one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the comma-separated fields list and the 'all' option. The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable at baseline but leaves no surplus value.

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?

States a concrete verb ('confirm') and a concrete resource ('which Trello member the configured API key and token authenticate as'), which is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling auth_token_info, leaving the agent to infer which auth diagnostic to pick.

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?

'Use as a read-only credential diagnostic' implies the usage context (verifying that the configured key/token are valid and belong to which member). There are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternative such as auth_token_info, so the agent must infer the routing between the two auth tools.

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