whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only operation, whose identity is returned (bot application user vs. OAuth user), or how guilds are represented. It conveys the output subject but nothing about side effects, permissions, or scope limits.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, and the key noun (the bot's user) comes first. It loses a point only because the mojibake encoding ("usuário", "está") makes the text harder to read and hints at a quality issue in the source string.

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 introspective tool with no output schema, the description covers both facets of the return value (identity plus guild membership). Only minor gaps remain, such as the exact shape of the guild list or whether the identity includes an ID.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are 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 names the concrete subject (the bot's own user) and the data returned (the guilds it belongs to), which separates it from siblings like get_guild or list_members. It is specific but hedged by the vague phrase "os servidores onde ele está" rather than naming guild objects explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is an identity/introspection call rather than a lookup of another user.

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