whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the substantive behavior: this is a read-only introspection of the API key's tenant, plan, and queryable workspaces. It does not explicitly state side-effect freedom or auth requirements, but for a zero-parameter read tool the disclosed behavior is largely sufficient.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reveals and followed by the concrete usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, and the zero-parameter schema is trivial. The remaining gap is minor: it could mention that tenants without workspaces can call `ask` directly, but the conditional phrasing already implies this.

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 there is no parameter-level meaning to add. The description correctly omits parameter discussion and focuses on the output scope instead.

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 names the exact information returned — tenant, plan, and the workspaces the API key may query — so the tool's job is unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `ask` by framing itself as the identity/scope lookup that precedes a query.

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 a direct when-to-use instruction: call this first to obtain a `workspace_id` before calling `ask` on a tenant that uses workspaces. That is clear routing guidance, though it does not state when the tool is unnecessary (e.g. tenants without workspaces).

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