wire_identities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the relationship between credential `id` and `credential_id` for auth_mode="required" actions, and by warning the agent to check for 'active' rather than 'expired' status. This is meaningful additional context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives necessary context about how credentials are used. It is slightly longer than strictly needed for a simple list tool, but every sentence earns its place by connecting the tool to the broader action workflow.

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 has only one optional parameter, a rich description, a true output schema, and safety annotations, nothing essential is missing. The description fully explains why the tool exists, how to filter it, and how its output feeds into subsequent auth-required actions.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the single optional catalog_id parameter already described in the schema as 'restrict to identities for a single catalog'. The description repeats this as 'Optionally filter by catalog_id' without adding new syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('your saved Wire identities and their credentials'), and it differentiates this tool from wire_read_action/wire_write_action by explaining that the credential `id` is the `credential_id` passed to those tools. This lets an agent immediately know what the tool returns and how it fits into the action flow.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this tool before running an auth-required action to find an existing credential and verify its status is 'active'. It also mentions the optional catalog_id filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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