list_enrolled_identities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'enrolled' means in this context. The description is too minimal for a tool in a blockchain environment.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of blockchain/wallet systems and the lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'identity' or 'enrolled,' doesn't describe the return format, and provides no behavioral context. For a tool in this domain, more completeness is needed.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline expectation for parameter-less tools.

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 states the action ('List all') and the resource ('identities enrolled in the wallet'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_chaincode' or 'get_transaction_history', which might also involve identity-related queries in this blockchain/wallet context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone. This is a significant gap given the sibling tools include various query and retrieval functions.

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