whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the return value (authenticated user and workspace), which is the core behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('Return') and references the current token, providing context about authentication. It doesn't discuss error cases, but for a simple whoami tool this is adequate.

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?

The description is a single, perfectly front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope. It is easy to parse and remember.

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?

Given the low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool returns. However, it doesn't describe the structure of the returned user/workspace data (e.g., fields or format), which might be necessary for an agent to use the output effectively. Since no output schema exists, a bit more detail would have been useful, but it's still sufficient for a simple identity check.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaningful context by noting the operation is for the 'current token', clarifying that authentication is implicit rather than a parameter. This adds value beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets it.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('authenticated user and workspace'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the current token's identity, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 description implies usage context: when you need to know the authenticated user/workspace for the current token. It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection in most scenarios. No explicit 'when not to use' is provided.

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