whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true Fowler, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by stating that the operation returns 'the current user profile' and that missing credentials or permission failures surface as errors. This gives the agent insight into failure behavior beyond the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary purpose first, followed by alternative tool guidance and one behavioral qualifier. Minor redundancy exists between 'Get current authenticated user details' and 'returns the current user profile', but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 simple, zero-required-parameter tool with a fully documented optional parameter Scott, the description covers purpose, scope, alternative tools, and error behavior. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently indicates what the call returns and what can go wrong, so 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 single `jmespath` parameter is fully described by the schema with 100% coverage, and the description does not add any parameter-specific details. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 'Get current authenticated user details' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from `get_user` and `get_users` by scoping this tool to the authenticated user. An agent can immediately tell this apart from sibling lookup tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('identify the authenticated GitLab user') and when to use alternatives ('use `get_user` or `get_users` when looking up another user'). This is clear, actionable guidance that covers both selection and exclusion.

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