get_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does disclose the return payload and the null case for the unset state. It does not mention any session/auth prerequisite (relevant given the sibling check_auth) or confirm the absence of side effects beyond the read verb.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the verb, the resource, the returned fields, and the null fallback with no wasted words.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must explain the return value itself, which it does by listing fields and the null case. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter getter, missing only any auth/session precondition.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance because none is needed.

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?

Specific verb ("Devuelve") plus resource ("identidad del comunicante") and it enumerates exactly which fields come back (nombre, apellidos, contacto, idioma). The read semantics are immediately distinguishable from the sibling set_identity.

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 null clause ("o null si aún no se preguntó") implicitly tells the agent this is a pre-check before asking the user, which is useful context. However, it never states when to call it, when not to, or points to set_identity as the write counterpart, so usage is only implied.

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