whoami

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower; the description adds meaningful context by explaining what the returned identity semantically drives (claims, self-referential fields). It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists.

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 tight sentences, the core meaning front-loaded before the clarifying note about claims. No wasted words.

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?

With zero params, a full output schema, and complete annotations, the description only needs to convey the identity's meaning and its relationship to related fields. It does so adequately.

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 are no argument semantics to clarify beyond the empty schema.

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?

States specifically what the tool reveals: the Linear user or app behind the token. It clearly identifies the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly name which sibling (e.g. check_claim vs claim) it differs from.

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 implies usage by tying the result to claims, assignee_is_me, and delegate_is_me, giving the agent context for interpretation. However, it never states when to call this tool versus alternatives like check_claim, so guidance remains implicit.

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