bb_whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies read-only behavior ('Get'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on error. However, for a simple retrieval tool, this may be sufficient.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action.

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 the zero parameters and simple nature of the tool, the description is nearly complete. It does not explicitly describe the return value or output format, but 'Get the currently authenticated Bitbucket user' sufficiently implies the outcome. Without an output schema, a slight increase in detail would improve completeness, but it is adequate.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since no parameters exist. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource 'currently authenticated Bitbucket user', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on repositories, pull requests, issues, etc.

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?

While there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, the description is self-explanatory for a 'whoami' operation. The context of sibling tools makes it obvious that this is for retrieving current user info, and no alternatives exist among siblings for this specific action.

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