whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals a significant side effect—triggering the consent flow if not connected—and outlines the return content. This is valuable transparency for a tool that might otherwise seem purely informational.

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 two sentences, both directly informative. The first sentence states the core function and its notable trigger behavior; the second offers concrete example user queries. No filler or redundant phrasing, with the most critical information front-loaded.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it returns, the side-effect of consent flow, and when to use it. It omits the exact response format, but the listed fields give enough context for an agent to interpret the result. Sibling tools like connect/disconnect further contextualize its role.

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 description correctly avoids explaining any inputs. It instead details the output fields (workspace, scopes, timestamps), which adds value beyond the trivial empty schema. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description meets that.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and names a clear resource ('info about the active Vibe Marketing connection'), enumerating exactly what data is included. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like ping or connect, making the tool's purpose obvious.

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 explicitly lists the user-phrased triggers ('am I connected' or 'which workspace am I using') for when to use the tool. While it doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the provided use cases give clear contextual guidance.

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