whoami

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'the OAuth bearer itself is never returned,' which is a key behavioral detail. However, it could mention other traits like whether authentication is required (implied) or rate limits.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds an important behavioral note. Every part 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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers what is returned and what is not. However, it could mention if authentication is required (implied from 'logged-in') or any preconditions.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explicitly listing what the response contains (email, plan, API base URL, token expiry), exceeding the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.

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's purpose: 'Describe the currently logged-in servonaut.dev session...' listing specific fields (email, plan, API base URL, token expiry). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_status or get_server_info by focusing on session details.

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 implies usage context: to retrieve session information. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, the purpose is clear and there are no obvious alternatives among siblings for this specific task.

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