jira_whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the core behavior (checks auth) and adds the nuance that identity is returned only 'when available.' However, it does not disclose what happens on failure (e.g., error behavior) or the exact nature of the return value beyond identity, leaving some uncertainty.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys exactly what the tool does without waste, perfectly sized for such a simple operation.

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 parameters, an output schema, and a simple one-sentence description, the tool is fully contextualized. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking it correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist. This 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Checks') with a specific resource (Jira authentication) and states the output (returns identity). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on searching issues, comments, and worklogs.

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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose as verifying authentication, which implies when to use it (before authenticated operations). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but no alternatives exist among siblings, so the context is clear.

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