JsonFabrica whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the HTTP method, that the operation uses the configured API key, and the return shape. It does not mention error behavior for invalid keys, but for a simple read-only GET this is a minor gap.

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?

One sentence contains all essential information: endpoint, authentication context, and return fields. No filler or redundant wording.

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 identity-check tool, the description is almost complete: it states what is called, what auth is used, and what is returned. It could mention possible failure modes or that no side effects occur, but the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter information to add. The baseline of 4 applies because with no parameters, the description cannot be expected to explain them.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Calls GET /v1/whoami') and states the exact return payload ({ tenantId, role }). This is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, which are focused on templates, sequences, batches, and usage rather than identity.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions. The whoami concept implies checking the configured API key's identity, but that is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.

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