yaaif_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 states what is returned but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires an active session, or what happens if authentication is missing. It also does not mention any side effects or potential errors. The description is not misleading, but it lacks depth.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Return') and lists the four pieces of information returned. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It enumerates the returned data points, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It does not specify the return format, but that is not a critical omission for a 'whoami' tool, and the lack of an output schema reduces the need for detailed return documentation.

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 schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to add. The description does not need to explain parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description correctly implies that no input is needed, and it adds no redundant information.

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 the tool returns current profile, auth session, tenant name/id, and RBAC identity. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like login, logout, or set_tenant, which are actions rather than informational queries.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the go-to tool for checking the current identity, nor does it note any exclusions (e.g., 'use this before authentication'). For a tool with a clear niche, this is a missed opportunity.

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