uber_eats_whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this reads from a 'saved session' and that it operates 'no login browser' (i.e., doesn't trigger interactive browser auth), which is a useful behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't detail the output structure beyond 'profile info and login status' — though an output schema exists. It doesn't address rate limits or side effects, but for a read-only whoami-style tool this is reasonably complete.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core function and key constraint ('no login browser'), and the second provides actionable usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only whoami tool with an output schema present, the description covers what's needed: what it does, its non-interactive nature, and how to use it in the login-checking workflow. The only minor gap is not describing what 'login status' values look like in the output, but with an output schema present that's partially covered.

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 has zero parameters, so there's nothing for the description to elaborate on. The 100% schema coverage baseline applies; the description correctly communicates the session-based data source. With 0 parameters, a baseline of 4 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 what the tool does: retrieve current user profile info and login status from the saved session. The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'user profile info and login status' is specific. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it operates on a saved session without opening a login browser, differentiating it from uber_eats_login and uber_eats_list_profiles/switch_profile. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the profile/session sibling tools beyond that.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use with get_preferences/get_address before deciding whether uber_eats_login is needed.' This clearly tells the agent when to call this tool (early, to check session state) and names the relevant sibling (uber_eats_login) for the alternative path. It lacks explicit when-not guidance but the decision context is clear.

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