permissions_whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses that the tool is non-mutating ('Não concede permissões') and that it only surfaces the AI's current usable apps and scopes, making side effects and scope clear.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The positive statement of what the tool does is front-loaded, followed immediately by the important non-granting caveat.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema introspection tool, this description is complete. It states what is returned conceptually and explicitly rules out permission mutation, giving an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 is empty and there are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed; it still provides useful context about what the tool reports.

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 ('Mostra') and a clear resource ('apps e scopes que a IA pode usar'), immediately conveying that this is a read-only permission introspection tool. The negative clause 'Não concede permissões' further distinguishes it from permissions_request and other mutation-oriented siblings.

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 when to use the tool: when the agent needs to know which apps and scopes it can currently use. It also provides an explicit when-not by stating it does not grant permissions, which routes the agent away from using it for permission changes, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool.

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