flat_whoami

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It implies a safe read ("Mostra") and that a token must already be configured, which is useful, but it says nothing about failure behavior (what an invalid/expired token returns) or the shape of the returned account object.

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?

One short sentence with the action first and the use case in parentheses; nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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-argument read with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (the authenticated account) and why it exists (connectivity check). Missing only the failure/error semantics an agent might want when probing auth state.

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 takes zero parameters, so the parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly conveys that authentication comes implicitly from the configured token rather than any argument.

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 specific verb ("Mostra") and a specific resource ("a conta Flat autenticada pelo token"), and adds that it doubles as a connection test. This is clearly distinct in kind from the score/revision/measure siblings, though the difference is conveyed by subject matter rather than an explicit contrast.

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 "(teste de conexão)" tells the agent exactly when to reach for it: verifying token validity/connectivity. There is no exclusion or named alternative because no sibling performs this function, but the trigger condition is explicit.

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