get_agent_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the conditional null return in lookup-only mode, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the operation is read-only and simple, so the disclosure is adequate.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds the conditional behavior. Every word contributes meaning, no redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (agent ID or null) and its format (0x-prefixed). For a tool with no parameters and simple behavior, the description is complete and leaves no unanswered questions.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information as there are none.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource (agent ID, 0x-prefixed wallet address). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it returns the ID of 'this MCP server', which is unique among the listed tools.

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 clearly states the tool's primary use (return agent ID) and a condition (null in lookup-only mode). While it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or name alternatives, the uniqueness of the tool makes guidance inherent. No exclusions are needed given the tool's simplicity.

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