modrinth_whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds that it verifies the token and returns auth details, which is a modest extension beyond annotations. It doesn't mention potential side effects (there are none) or rate limits, but for a verification call, this is acceptable.

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, both essential. The first sentence states the action and return values, the second provides usage guidance. Zero waste, front-loaded purpose.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the necessary information: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. Annotations cover safety. It lacks details like error cases or rate limits, but for a simple auth check, the description is sufficiently complete.

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, and schema coverage is effectively complete (empty schema). The description adds meaning by explaining the output (username, id, email, role), which is valuable for the agent even though it's not required for parameter semantics. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Verify') and resource ('configured Modrinth token'), clearly stating it returns the authenticated user's details (username, id, email, role). This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on projects or versions.

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 explicitly says 'Use this first to confirm auth works', providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose is so specific that the usage is clear.

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