jdra_whoami

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the action is a read-only identity check via the verb '확인한다', but it does not state side effects, error behavior on invalid PAT, or return format. The description is sufficient for a trivial whoami tool but adds little beyond the purpose.

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 sentence that immediately states the tool's core function with no filler. It is front-loaded and equally concise.

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 tool with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough information to understand what the tool does. It does not specify the return shape, but the purpose strongly implies the result is the user identity, and an agent can discover the actual response upon invocation. Given the simplicity, completeness is adequate.

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 input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to explain. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not omit any parameter details because none exist.

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 uses the specific verb '확인한다' (checks) and clearly states the resource: which JDRA user the current PAT operates as. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on projects, reports, issues, or users, none of which are identity checks.

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 implies the tool is for verifying the identity behind a PAT, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any conditions. There are no close sibling alternatives, so the implied use case is fairly clear, but explicit guidance is absent.

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