whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable context about the 'is_main_operator' field and its implications for scoped vs. full-state results, and calls the tool 'cheap.' It does not explicitly mention side effects or auth requirements, but these are minimal for a read-only smoke test.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds crucial interpretive context. 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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema (so return values need not be described), and no parameters. The description explains the key semantic nuance of is_main_operator and the tool's role as a smoke test, making it complete for selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters since there are none, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing to add.

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 what the tool does with a specific verb and resource: 'Show the configured connection: user, root server, main operator status.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_operator or get_server_info by focusing on the current connection and its role as a smoke test.

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 says 'Cheap connectivity and permission smoke test,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It also explains how is_main_operator affects interpretation of other tool results, implying this should be used to establish context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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