whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly conveys a read-only, non-destructive action ('check', 'returns') and indicates the output type (authenticated user info). It does not detail error behavior, but for a zero-parameter auth-check tool, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 two short, focused sentences. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the action and clearly states the return.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, an output schema that details the return format), the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers both the action and the expected result.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no schema information to augment. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the tool's purpose and result, meeting the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools.

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 uses the specific verb 'check' and resource 'current Bitbucket auth', immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with repos, PRs, pipelines, etc. It clearly states the tool's function and output (authenticated user info).

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?

The description implies usage for verifying authentication and obtaining user identity. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools serve a similar purpose, so the usage context is clear without exclusions.

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