agora_get_self

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that secrets are excluded ('Never includes key material or provider credentials'), but says nothing about the read-only/non-side-effecting nature, auth requirements, or rate limits. The security exclusion is real value-add, but coverage is thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary purpose leads and the safety note follows. Efficient and readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and with zero params the description only needs to frame purpose and safety. It does both, though it could specify that the operation is non-mutating to fully round out the picture.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema, and it correctly avoids redundant parameter text.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('this agent's public AGORA identity and safe local state'). The phrase 'this agent's' usefully scopes it against sibling identity/registry lookups like agora_a2a_card, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to inspect its own identity/state. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. agora_a2a_card for another agent), and no preconditions stated.

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