gitlab_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 discloses the HTTP method (GET) and the fact that the operation is tied to the supplied token, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not describe the response structure, error behavior, or whether any rate limits apply, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 short sentence with the endpoint in parentheses, which is appropriately sized and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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-parameter identity lookup, invocation is fully specified. However, there is no output schema and the description does not enumerate the returned user fields, so an agent may not know what data to expect. This is a minor completeness gap for a standard GitLab /user endpoint.

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 input schema fully covers everything; there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 identifies the resource (the authenticated user associated with the token) and the exact endpoint (GET /user), making the tool's purpose clear. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' but the noun phrase is unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like gitlab_list_projects because the endpoint and token reference are unique to identity lookup.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as figma_whoami or other GitLab tools. The usage is only implied: if you need the identity of the current token holder, this is the tool. There is no explicit mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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