clickup_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 behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies it returns authentication context, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or what specific user information is returned, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the complete purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no redundant or unnecessary elements.

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 read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't specify what user data is returned (e.g., ID, name, email) or potential limitations, leaving some completeness gaps for the agent.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 verb ('Get') and the specific resource ('currently authenticated ClickUp user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It effectively distinguishes this tool from other user-related tools like 'clickup_user_get' by specifying it returns the authenticated user rather than a user by ID.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'currently authenticated' user, suggesting this tool should be used to retrieve the user associated with the current authentication session. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'clickup_user_get' for retrieving other users.

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