wirebox_whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of indicating behavior. 'Show' clearly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and mentioning connection status discloses the kind of state being checked. It does not discuss authentication or failure modes, but these are not critical for a simple identity/status tool.

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?

A single sentence delivers the complete purpose with specific output elements and no filler. The identity details are listed before the status detail, and every word earns its place.

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 tool, the description tells the agent exactly what it will learn: handle, email address, display name, and iMessage router connection status. Nothing essential is missing.

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 reflects that with full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, this is sufficient.

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 specific resource ('this agent's Wirebox identity') plus a connection-status check. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the mail and iMessage sibling tools, which perform sending, listing, and conversation operations.

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 makes clear this is for retrieving the agent's own identity and router connection state. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the sibling tools are functionally different enough that confusion is unlikely, so the context is clear without exclusions.

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