Кто я в панели

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by detailing what information is exposed (account, panel, cases with rights), setting expectations beyond the bare 'whoami' name.

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 sentences: the first directly states the tool's output, and the second offers practical advice on ordering. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only tool, the description fully explains the returned content (account, panel, cases with permissions) and how it fits into an agent's workflow. Without an output schema, this level of detail is both necessary and sufficient.

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 the schema is empty. Per the guidelines, the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to describe nonexistent parameters.

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 that the tool returns the current account, connected panel, and accessible cases with their permissions. This is a specific and unambiguous statement of purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the current session context rather than listing resources.

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 advises to call this tool first and mentions that afterwards cases can be referenced by name, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the strong recommendation to invoke it first is valuable.

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