peck_fleet_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It is transparent that this is a read-only listing of local keychain identities and describes what each entry contains. It could explicitly state that it does not modify state or mention auth prerequisites, but the verb and detail make the behavior clear.

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 no filler; the action and resource are front-loaded, followed by the output fields and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless listing tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the data source, the fields returned, and the intended use, so an agent has enough context to call and interpret the result 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools, and the description still explains how the returned list relates to the agent_account parameter used in other tools.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all BRC-100 identities stored in the OS keychain for this install.' It enumerates the returned fields and the intended purpose, which clearly distinguishes it from the read/write and transaction siblings. This is a strong, unambiguous statement of the tool's function.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to discover which agents you can write as via the agent_account parameter. It provides clear context for when to call it, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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