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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('看') and that it returns current identity, but it does not disclose details like whether it requires authentication, what exact fields are returned, or whether it reflects real-time state. This is adequate but minimal.

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, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 is nearly complete. An agent knows what the tool does and can invoke it without arguments. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about the return value's structure, but with no output schema, the description's '当前身份' gives sufficient context.

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 is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by clarifying the purpose (viewing current identity), which is more than the empty schema provides. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.

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 '看你在社区的当前身份' clearly states the tool's function: it retrieves the current identity in the community. The verb '看' (view) and resource '身份' (identity) are specific, and it is distinguishable from siblings like post_message or join_community, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 a simple, no-argument identity check, which is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it (when needing current identity). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some room for inference.

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