whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the phrase 'for the Azure CLI authenticated identity' establishes the authentication context. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, return format, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. It leads with the action verb and immediately specifies what is returned, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names what is retrieved and the authentication context. It could add a brief note about the environment parameter's origin, but the schema already provides that, so nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'environment' is documented as coming from list_environments, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The tool description itself does not mention the parameter, but it does not need to because the schema is fully descriptive.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resources returned: Dataverse user, business unit, and organization. It is clear and distinct from the sibling tools by focusing on identity information, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like dataverse_request.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only contextual clue is 'for the Azure CLI authenticated identity,' which implies identity-related use but is not explicit enough to guide an agent choosing between this and sibling tools.

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