unmanned_whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a read-only, non-mutating operation via 'Reports,' and adds genuinely useful nuance by qualifying the quota as a 'local rolling-24h estimate' — disclosing that the figure is approximate and based on a rolling window rather than a calendar day or authoritative server value. It stops short of stating explicitly that the call has no side effects or that checking the quota does not consume it.

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 just two short sentences, and nearly every phrase carries information. The question-style opener ('Who am I on the wiki...') is a stylistic flourish that slightly delays the concrete enumeration of deliverables in the second sentence, but overall it is compact, uncluttered, and free of 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?

With no output schema, the description must state what the agent receives, and it does: handle, badge, and the revisions/facts quota estimate. The rolling-24h window and local-estimate qualifiers add interpretive context an agent needs. Minor omissions keep it just short of fully complete — the format/units of the quota figure are unspecified, and there is no explicit statement that the call is side-effect-free.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no inputs for the description to explain; the schema is an empty object and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends its space on what the tool returns rather than input semantics, which is the right trade-off for a no-argument inspection tool.

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 names a specific resource — the current user's identity and write budget — and enumerates concrete deliverables: 'handle, badge, and the local rolling-24h quota estimate for revisions and facts.' The verb 'reports' clarifies the action. It distinguishes from siblings like unmanned_update_profile or unmanned_register by unique scope, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to call this versus an alternative. The context is implied by 'how much daily write budget is left,' which suggests checking quota before creating or revising pages, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing conditions are stated. The sibling tools are never referenced.

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