identity__describe_agent

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('self-description'), but does not explicitly disclose side effects, authentication needs, or data sensitivity. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and stating 'Fleet-standard' hints at conventions but could be more explicit.

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, consisting of one sentence with a bracketed namespace hint. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a self-description tool in a large system with many similar tools, additional context about the returned data (e.g., agent capabilities, DID) would improve completeness.

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 is empty, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully defines the no-parameter case.

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 states it is for 'verifiable agent identity + capability discovery' and 'Fleet-standard self-description', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose of providing a self-descriptive metadata for an identity agent. It distinguishes from sibling describe_agent tools by the identity namespace, but could be more specific about the exact output.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other describe_agent tools from different namespaces (e.g., arbitration__describe_agent, offsets__describe_agent) or versus other identity tools like identity__resolve_agent. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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