whoami

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

Without annotations, this description carries the disclosure burden. It explains that API tokens only confirm auth works and identity is None, while login/password return full user data such as id, username, fullName, roles, and role_names. It does not mention failure behavior or response shape, so it is not perfect.

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 concise and front-loads the main purpose in its first sentence. The following auth-mode distinction is dense and useful, but the layout could be slightly smoother. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains the identity behavior for both authentication types. However, it says nothing about how the optional journal parameter affects results, and it does not explain what the response looks like when auth fails. This makes it adequate but not fully 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 schema describes a single optional 'journal' parameter but has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions this parameter. The description does not explain what journal does, whether it must be set, or what null means. This leaves the only parameter undocumented.

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 explicitly states that the tool checks whether the current credentials work and who you are, using a specific verb and resource. It foresees the difference between API token and login credentials, distinguishing its behavior clearly. No sibling tool shares this purpose.

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 text implies the tool should be used for credential validation, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with alternative tools. It mentions auth-mode differences but not when to prefer this tool over search_users or other siblings.

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