Doco Whoami

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds useful context by specifying that it inspects the current token and reports user/permission scope, but it does not elaborate on behavior around missing or invalid tokens.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action and the object in minimal space, and every word earns its place.

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 low complexity, zero parameters, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly tells an agent what the tool does and what information it will surface, with no meaningful 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description. The no-parameter baseline is 4, and the description appropriately says nothing about inputs.

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 states an explicit self-check action ('自检身份') and clearly identifies the resource: the user and permission scope associated with the current token. This is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on documents, search, translations, and concepts rather than identity introspection.

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 the intended use case: call this tool when you need to know the current token's user identity or permission scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to serve this identity-check purpose, so the contextual guidance is sufficient.

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