whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns the connected account and its status, and adds the specific mechanism 'via the chokepoint'. While it does not describe error cases or output formatting, it clearly conveys a read-only status operation.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and object, and every word adds meaning.

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 simple zero-parameter identity lookup, the description is largely sufficient: it names both the returned information and the source. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit statement about expected use after connect_x, but nothing essential is missing for invocation.

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 parameter semantics are not a concern. Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to document parameter behavior that does not exist.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Show', and a clear resource, 'the connected X account and its status'. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like connect_x, post_now, and preview, which all perform different actions.

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 clearly implies the tool is for checking which X account is currently connected and its status, which is a distinct context among the sibling tools. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare against alternatives, but the usage context is clear for a zero-parameter identity/status tool.

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