get_identity

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral fact: the return payload (email, language) and the null case when identity was never captured. It omits any note on persistence or whether the value is cached, but for a trivial parameterless read this is solid coverage.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the null case appended as a useful qualifier. No waste.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing an agent cannot get from structured fields: what comes back and when it is null. Only a hint about how the identity should be used downstream is missing.

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 of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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 and resource ('Devuelve la identidad guardada') and even enumerates the returned fields (email, idioma). It contrasts implicitly with the sibling set_identity via the get/set pairing, but never names the alternative 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?

The clause 'o null si aún no se preguntó' implies the usage flow (call set_identity when this returns null), but no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is stated. Guidance is inferable rather than spelled out.

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