Get Identities

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits, response structure) beyond what annotations and schema provide. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise: three sentences plus a structured Args list. The first sentence states purpose directly. Every sentence adds value. The format is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, required access, and parameter details. It could optionally mention the return type or pagination, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% (all 3 parameters are described in the schema). The description repeats the parameter names and types, adding only minor clarity (e.g., labeling 'onlyUnlinkedIdentities' as optional). This does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 tool retrieves all identities owned by an organisation, including details on linked companies. This specific verb-resource-scope combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like machship_get_identity (single identity) and machship_create_identities.

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 mentions a prerequisite: 'Requires administrator access to the organisation.' It implicitly indicates use for listing identities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like machship_get_identity or machship_get_identity_providers_for_organisation. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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