github_whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the output fields but does not explicitly state authentication requirements or potential errors. However, the term 'authenticated' implies that an auth token is required, and for a simple read operation 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It includes a parenthetical list of example return fields, adding value without extra words.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It lists the key return fields and indicates the scope ('authenticated user'). It could mention edge cases like no token or rate limits, but the context signals show this is a basic tool.

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 the schema provides no semantics. The baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter info because none are needed.

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 gets the authenticated GitHub user's profile, listing specific details like login, name, and email. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., github_get_repo, github_list_repos).

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 context is clear: this is for retrieving the current user's own profile. It implies when to use it (when you need authenticated user info) and no alternatives among siblings serve the same purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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