whoami

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-style resolution operation and notes that the endpoint is configurable, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, failure modes, or how the path parameter is interpreted. This leaves key behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes the key configurable aspect concisely.

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?

The tool is relatively simple: one optional parameter, an output schema, and a low-complexity operation. The description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks usage differentiation and behavioral context. It does not explain when to prefer this tool over related auth/profile tools, or clarify the profile endpoint resolution.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'path' parameter. The phrase 'configurable profile endpoint' gives some meaning to the path parameter, indicating it is the endpoint used for resolution. However, it does not clarify whether the path is a relative URL, absolute URL, or how it relates to the default '/v2/userinfo'.

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 a specific action, 'Resolve current principal', and identifies the resource as the current authenticated principal. It also mentions the configurable profile endpoint, which adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like auth_status or get_member_profile.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auth_status, get_member_profile, or auth_refresh. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenario. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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