list_identities

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list all connected identities', which implies a read operation, but does not mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no identities exist. The term 'connected' is also left undefined.

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 consists of two concise sentences, no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then provides a clear definition. Every sentence is meaningful.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete—it explains what the tool does and defines the resource. However, it could mention the return type (e.g., list of identity objects) or that it returns all identities without filtering. Still, for a simple list tool, it is adequate.

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 value by defining what an identity is ('profile (LinkedIn, email, etc.) used to send messages'), which helps the agent understand the resource beyond the empty schema. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 verb ('list all') and resource ('connected identities'), and defines what an identity is (profile used to send messages). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_members and list_audiences by focusing on a specific resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the simple nature of listing all identities makes usage obvious, the description lacks explicit context such as 'use this to view available sender profiles' or when not to use it.

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