list_agent_identities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the payload fields (owner, blueprint, permissions, risk) and says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume, which for an open-world listing tool would be useful.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and returned fields come first. It is efficient, though it could carry one more clause of routing or parameter guidance at little cost.

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?

Annotations and the one-line scope cover the basics for a read-only listing tool with no output schema, but the two undocumented parameters and the absence of any when-to-use guidance leave real gaps for an agent choosing among ~50 sibling tools.

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 0% for two parameters (limit, status), and the description mentions neither. It does not explain the default of 50, the pagination behavior, or the accepted values for 'status' (default 'all' implies an enum-like filter that is never documented).

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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('Agent Identities') and enumerates the fields the inventory carries (owner, blueprint, permissões, risco), which differentiates it from neighbors like get_agent_relationships or get_agents_by_owner. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool rather than the many adjacent agent/identity tools (get_agent_relationships, get_agents_by_owner, agent_natural_language_query). 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.