whoami

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

No annotations are provided, but the description thoroughly discloses behavior: never errors on missing/invalid tokens, returns { authenticated: false }, strips internal identifiers, and distinguishes auth failures from network errors. This fully covers the safety and error profile.

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 structured logically: output type, user object contents, stripped fields, error behavior, and usage. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the return object, field composition, and error semantics. It leaves no ambiguity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds value by explaining the output shape and fields.

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 the tool returns an identity check for the current syntx.ai user, with a specific output structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-profile by focusing on authentication status verification.

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 says 'Use it to verify authentication status' and explains when real errors occur, helping the agent decide when to call it. Does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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