whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields and implies a read-only operation via 'validar que o token funciona', adding auth context. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or error handling, leaving a small gap.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the core function, then usage guidance, then an explicit exclusion. Every sentence carries purpose 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?

The tool is simple with no params and no output schema, so the description appropriately covers the return fields and how to use it. It also mentions the sibling tool to avoid, making it contextually complete for the agent.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context that the token is 'configurado' (configured), reinforcing that no input parameters are needed. No further parameter explanation is required.

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 'Retorna' and specifies the resource: identity of the configured Personal Access Token, including exact fields (id, username, name, web_url). It distinguishes itself from a sibling tool by explicitly warning not to use it before list_mrs_awaiting_my_review.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: to validate that the token works before investigating errors, or when needing your username. It also gives a clear alternative (list_mrs_awaiting_my_review) and explains why not to use it before that tool.

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