identify

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only lists output items and does not mention side effects, safety, permissions, or any operational context. For a tool with a bearer token parameter, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or if any state changes occur.

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 lists the three key outputs in a clear order. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return content (identity, version, gate status). It lacks broader context such as error conditions or prerequisites beyond the token, but the scope is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'token', which is described as 'bearer token (from TERO_TOKENS)'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 provides server identity, version, and Layer-2 gate status. It names specific resources, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but its focus on server metadata sets it apart from query/search 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 implies usage: when you need server identity, version, or gate status, this is the tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to alternatives like query_by_status or explain. There is no direct mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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