huddo_whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing exactly which identity fields are returned and clarifying the '@slug' mention convention, but says nothing about auth requirements or the default-identity resolution behavior.

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 compact sentence with the identity fields front-loaded and zero padding. It could be marginally tighter but every clause carries information.

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 trivial read tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, the description is nearly sufficient; with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields (slug, display name, avatar, default room) usefully covers the return value.

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 100%, so the sole 'as' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('the identity') and enumerates the returned fields (slug, display name, avatar, default room). It's clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like huddo_status or huddo_list, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance is given. Usage is only implied by the described output (fetch current identity), and nothing steers the agent away from huddo_status or huddo_members as overlapping options.

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