moodle_whoami

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool verifies a saved token and returns user/site info, which suggests a read-only operation. However, it does not address edge cases like missing/expired tokens, network dependencies, or whether the 'site' parameter modifies any stored state.

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 concise sentence with no fluff and front-loaded action. It is under-specified for what it needs to convey, but from a pure conciseness standpoint it is appropriately brief.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format is covered, but the description lacks essential context about the optional 'site' parameter, usage scenarios, and fallback behavior. Given the zero annotations and minimal description, the tool is not fully specified for an agent to use correctly without additional inference.

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 has one optional parameter ('site') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. The description fails to explain what 'site' is for, what values it accepts, or its effect when omitted (default null).

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 action ('Verify saved Moodle token') and the expected output ('return current user/site info'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like moodle_courses_list and moodle_setup by focusing on authentication status and current 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like moodle_probe or moodle_init. It implies usage for checking saved token validity, but does not state exclusions or when to prefer other tools.

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