get_identity_card

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: writes to a file (exports/identity_card.md), access control (refused for non-owner when governance enabled), and hints at read-only nature. Minor omission: does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or read-only, but overall transparent.

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 well-structured with bilingual sections, bullet points, and front-loaded core function. It is clear and informative, though slightly wordy with both languages included.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (assumed present), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output format. It is complete and requires no additional 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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no redundant info.

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 clearly defines the tool's action (export) and resource (portable AI identity card), specifies the output format (Markdown), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_user_context by stating when each is appropriate. This meets the highest standard of purpose clarity.

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 provides explicit when-to-call guidance ('Call when another AI tool needs a self-contained summary...') and when-not-to-call ('if only runtime context needed, use get_user_context'), which is exemplary usage guidance.

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