whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses read-only and self-scoped behavior, explains the app_id provenance in serve mode vs. stdio enforcement, and describes the output on an empty/missing manifest, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond any structured metadata.

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?

Three dense sentences: the first states the core purpose and output, the second covers auth/scope caveats, and the third covers edge-case behavior. Every clause adds necessary information with no filler.

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 simple introspection tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description is effectively self-contained. It covers the returned fields, auth behavior, self-scoping, and empty-manifest behavior, leaving no major gaps.

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 schema provides only an optional app_id with 0% description coverage, but the description explains that in serve mode the app_id comes from OAuth binding, while in stdio under enforcement you must prove ownership via a per-call credential. This gives the parameter real semantic meaning.

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 opens with 'Report who you are and what you may do' and enumerates the exact fields returned: app_id, role, permission groups, resolved tool set, store_scope, and human-only seat. It clearly distinguishes itself as self-scoped and non-enumerating, unlike sibling tools.

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?

It states when this tool is appropriate: for inspecting your own identity and effective permissions, and explicitly notes it works ungated even when the manifest is empty or missing, comparing it to diagnostic_summary. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name a direct alternative, but the context is clear.

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