whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses the entire return payload (connection state, pairing code, current file/page/selection, project/Code Connect file, snapshots). It does not describe failure semantics or how to interpret the pairing code, which are minor gaps for a read-only status tool.

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 sentences: purpose plus a field inventory, then the usage trigger. It is front-loaded with the resource and wastes little, though the comma-separated field list is dense.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return values — and it does, itemizing the status fields. An agent has enough to know what it will receive and when to call it; only interpretation guidance for the pairing code is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for.

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 states a specific resource — the local Figma connection status — and enumerates exactly what it reports (connection state, pairing code, open file/page/selection, project and Code Connect file, saved snapshots). The generic name 'whoami' is fully rescued by the description, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_metadata or get_design_context.

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 concrete trigger: 'Use it when a read fails,' which tells the agent this is a diagnostic fallback. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, but for a zero-param diagnostic tool the single condition is sufficient context.

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