whoami

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the return fields and explains the canonical agent ID contract for linked profiles. No side effects mentioned, but likely none. Auth requirements are implicit from parameters.

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 well-structured with paragraphs and a bullet list of returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly lengthy but each part adds value.

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 no output schema, the description includes a detailed list of return fields. It covers the tool's functionality well. Could mention error scenarios, but not necessary for a simple identity check.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful detail: 'access_token: AgentAuth bearer token' and 'public_key_hex: Hex-encoded Ed25519 public key (standalone agents).' This goes beyond the schema titles.

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 'Check your identity as AgentTrust sees it' and lists the returned fields, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_agent_profile' and 'check_trust' by focusing on the caller's own identity.

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?

Explicitly states 'Useful for verifying your auth is working correctly before making other calls,' which provides clear context for when to use. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but for a simple identity check this is sufficient.

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