agent_identity

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses a key limitation (does not include private key), which is useful, but it does not describe any permission requirements, return format, or error cases. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates scope, target, and a critical exclusion (private key) in just a few words, achieving maximum information density.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential usage context: what it returns (identity code), its scope (self or others), and an important safety note (no private key). An agent can invoke it correctly with the available information.

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 schema describes parameter agent_id as '目标 Agent 身份码（缺省 = 查自己）' (target agent ID, default = self), and the tool description reinforces this by stating '查自己或他人' (query self or others). This adds semantic context beyond the schema, such as default behavior and scope, even though schema coverage is high at 100%.

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 states a specific verb '查询' (query) and a specific resource 'Agent 身份码' (Agent identity code). It clarifies that it can be used for self or others and explicitly excludes the private key, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_agents or create_agent.

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 when to use it (querying an agent's identity code, for self or others) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative approaches. While it is clear from context, there are no exclusions or explicit differentiation from similar tools.

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