Whoami

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds further context: 'Effect: read', human approval not required, post-call steps (follow typed result state, review proposals), and detailed failure handling. No contradictions.

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 relatively long (95 words) but well-structured with explicit sections (Use when, Do not use when, Requires, etc.). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor verbosity reduces conciseness, but overall acceptable.

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?

Given no parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage boundaries, prerequisites, effects, post-call actions, and failure modes. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in description.

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?

No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 as per rules. Description adds no param info, but none is needed.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'authenticated Abyss principal classification and team onboarding summary', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'auth_status' and 'team_onboarding_status' by specifying the combination of principal classification and onboarding.

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?

Explicit sections for 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' provide clear guidance on appropriate contexts. Also specifies requirements ('authenticated API authority'), effects, and even failure handling patterns, leaving no ambiguity about alternatives.

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