get_identity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape and the null-when-unset behavior, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about permissions, whether the identity can be stale, or any side effects, though the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Devuelve'.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource and appends the important edge case (null). No filler, no redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential missing piece: what fields come back and when null is returned. It is close to complete, missing only the relationship to set_identity as the writer of this value.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, single-value retrieval, and no parameter documentation 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?

States a specific verb ('Devuelve') and resource ('la identidad del comunicante'), and even enumerates the returned fields (contacto, idioma, dispositivo). It reads as the clear getter counterpart to the sibling set_identity, though it never names that counterpart 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 'null si aún no se preguntó' clause hints at the state in which the call is meaningful, which implies usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of set_identity as the alternative that populates this value, and no sequencing advice.

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