whoami

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden and does most of it: it discloses the exact payload fields, states a precondition (no board required), and frames the call as an auth check, which implies a side-effect-free read. It never explicitly confirms read-only behavior or explains what happens with an expired/invalid token.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the return values follow, and the usage note closes it out. Four short lines with no filler; every sentence adds distinct information.

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?

A parameterless, read-only introspection tool with an output schema is fully covered here: the description supplies the auth-verification use case and the no-board precondition, and the output schema handles the return shape.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with "Requires no board," which preempts the most common error of passing an id to a token-inspection call.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Show the context of the current access token") and then enumerates exactly what is returned: token type, owning user, installation team, and granted scopes. No sibling tool does anything similar, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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?

"Useful to verify auth before other calls" gives an explicit when-to-use condition, and "Requires no board" removes the most likely wrong assumption (that a board id is needed). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it, but none is obviously competing.

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