whoami

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains it is a read operation (GET), returns specific data, and mentions wallet authentication. Could be slightly more explicit about lack of side effects, but overall good transparency.

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 plus a third providing alternative guidance. It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds unique value without verbosity.

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 adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it differs from a sibling. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description adds no confusion and clearly communicates that no parameters are needed. Score 5 is appropriate.

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 tool resolves the caller's control-plane principal and org memberships, specifies the endpoint and return fields, and distinguishes itself from the 'status' sibling tool by stating this is for REMOTE identity.

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?

Explicitly says 'This is the REMOTE identity — for the local wallet/profile state use `status`.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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