whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does meaningfully: it discloses the exact contents returned (email, key name, scopes, server URL, E2E decryption status) and frames the tool as a read-only diagnostic. It does not explicitly state that it is side-effect free, but the identity-inspection framing makes that clear.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads the diagnostic trigger. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what comes back — it enumerates the returned fields — and it supplies the diagnostic use case. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call this zero-parameter tool is missing.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is nothing to parameterize, and the 100% schema coverage leaves no gap to compensate for.

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+resource — it returns the identity this MCP server is connected as — and enumerates the exact fields (account email, API key name, scopes, server URL, encryption capability). This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which is a time-tracking domain tool.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: "Call this first when a tool fails, to see which scopes are missing." That is a concrete when-to-use condition. It does not name any competing tool or an exclusion, but no sibling overlaps this diagnostic role, so ambiguity is low.

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