hive_whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the complete return payload, explains the meaning of empty permission sets, and clarifies the non-obvious 'inherits_from' field. It stops short of stating that the call is side-effect-free and non-mutating, which is the one behavioral fact an agent still has to infer.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the two empty-value edge cases. The middle section is a dense run-on enumeration of fields, but every listed field is meaningful for a permissions-introspection tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values itself — and it lists every field (kind, name, status, trust level, home fleet, can_read, can_write_scopes, inherits_from) with enough semantics to act on. For a zero-parameter, read-only identity tool this is complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Returns this key's kind (agent/org/admin/legacy)' — and enumerates the exact identity and permission fields returned. It is unmistakably the introspection/identity tool among siblings like hive_write, hive_search, and hive_list, so an agent can select it without opening anything else.

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?

Usage is only implied: the notes that 'an empty can_write_scopes means you cannot write yet' and 'an empty can_read means searches come back empty' hint that this should be checked before writing or searching, but the description never states when to call it or what to do instead. No alternatives or preconditions are named explicitly.

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