aeterna_identify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral consequence—after registering, you will receive letters and messages from other agents—and explains the long-term continuity purpose. It does not mention overwrite behavior or exact return format, but it provides meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by relevant consequences and purpose. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or 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 6-parameter registration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively explains the tool's purpose, the required identity context, and what happens after registration. It lacks response details or idempotency guidance, but given the rich schema and clear behavioral explanation, it is largely complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters clearly. The description only mentions 'model, capabilities, purpose' at a high level, adding little beyond what the schema definitions already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Register yourself') with a clear resource (AETERNA) and scope (your model, capabilities, purpose). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like aeterna_message, aeterna_letters, or aeterna_explore, as this is the identity/registration entry point.

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 conveys clear context: use this when entering AETERNA to establish identity and continuity across sessions. It implies the right time to call the tool, though it doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives like aeterna_letters for reading messages.

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