identity__describe_agent

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'self-description' without detailing what data is returned, whether any side effects occur, or any authentication requirements. Minimal behavioral insight.

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 very concise with one sentence. It front-loads the domain in brackets, which is helpful. However, it could be slightly more structured or include a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., format, fields). It only says 'self-description', which is vague. With many sibling describe_agent tools, the agent needs to know how this identity version differs. Incomplete.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it also does not explain the output, which is relevant for understanding the tool. 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 states the tool is for 'verifiable agent identity + capability discovery' and is a 'Fleet-standard self-description', which clearly indicates it returns self-description of the agent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling describe_agent tools in other domains.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs. other describe_agent tools from different domains (e.g., arbitration, compute-ledger), nor does it specify prerequisites or alternatives.

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