whoami

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

The description states 'Ничего не тратит' (spends nothing), which is a behavioral disclosure that the tool has no side effects or resource consumption. While annotations are absent, this statement provides useful behavioral context. It doesn't detail what happens if config is missing, but the description covers the key behavioral trait.

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, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and then add usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what it does, the second explains when to use it. No wasted words.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool checks, that it's free, and when to call it. It doesn't describe the output format, but with no output schema, that's a minor gap. The description gives enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description compensates by explaining what the tool checks (keys, database path, default domain), which gives context about what the tool operates on. With 0 params, baseline is 4, and the description adds relevant context.

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's purpose: checking yaseo configuration, including key sources, missing keys, where to obtain them, database path, and default domain. It uses a specific verb ('Проверить') and resource ('конфигурацию yaseo'), making it distinct from sibling tools that perform actions like tracking, auditing, or research.

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 says to call this tool first before spending requests ('Вызывать первым, прежде чем тратить запросы'). This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies it should be used before other tools, which is strong usage guidance.

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