paperclip_whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'identity information' without specifying what fields are returned (e.g., user ID, name, roles, permissions) or whether this reflects the user or the agent context. An agent cannot infer the exact output shape or any side effects, though this tool likely has none. The description is too terse to be behaviorally transparent.

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?

A single, concise sentence that delivers the core purpose immediately. No fluff or redundancy. The structure is optimally front-loaded.

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 has no output schema, so the description is the only source for return-value expectations. It only says 'identity information', which is vague. An agent would not know whether to expect a user object, a string, or a set of claims. For a no-parameter tool, the description should at least enumerate the key fields. This is a notable gap, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the severity.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exists. With 0 params, the baseline of 4 is appropriate – there is nothing to compensate for.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'identity information about the current authenticated user/agent'. It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, which cover agents, issues, projects, etc. No confusion about what this tool does.

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 purpose is self-evident: to retrieve the identity of the authenticated principal. There are no sibling tools that perform a similar function, so the context is clear. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before other API calls) or provide exclusions, though these are not critical for a whoami-type tool.

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