Agent status (who am I / can I act)

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full burden. It reveals that the tool returns the signing address, balance, chain info, and policy bounds, and that it indicates whether execution is enabled. However, it doesn't specify exact fields or format, but given the simplicity and no params, it is adequate. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, with the most critical information (use this first, learn your address) front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: identity, usage, gas-paying ability. 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 zero-parameter self-status tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, why to call it, and when to call it. No missing information for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description adds value by explaining what the output will contain, which compensates for the lack of schema detail. Baseline 4 for no params 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?

The description clearly states the tool reports the agent's own on-chain identity, including address, balance, sequence, chain, execution status, and policy bounds. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gno_status (network status) and gno_get_account (account lookup) by emphasizing it is self-referential. The verb 'learn' and resource 'agent's own identity' are specific.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool first before acting, to discover the address and gas-paying ability. It implies when not to use (before acting) and implicitly contrasts with alternatives like gno_get_account for other accounts. Clear guidance on when to use.

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