peck_identity_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful setup facts: the identity file location, the BSV address, the funding requirement for writing, and identity sharing across CLI tools. Yet it does not describe what happens when the MCP tool is invoked, what it returns, or whether it has side effects, which leaves the runtime behavior ambiguous.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the setup command, the resulting BSV address and funding requirement, and the shared-identity note. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 informational tool, the setup guidance is mostly self-contained. However, it does not clarify what the tool actually returns, whether it is purely informational, or how it relates to the sibling identity-management tools. An agent could reasonably be unsure whether calling the tool will run setup or just display instructions.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document parameters, and it adds relevant context about identity setup rather than parameter meaning.

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 identifies the topic — setting up an agent identity via `npx peck-init` and `~/.peck/identity.json` — but it never states what the tool itself does when invoked. It reads as instructions rather than a description of tool behavior, and it does not clearly distinguish this info tool from sibling tools like peck_register_identity or peck_set_identity.

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?

It provides useful usage context: run the init command locally, fund the address to enable writing, and note that all CLI tools share the same identity. However, it does not explicitly say when to call this tool versus alternatives such as peck_register_identity or peck_set_identity, so the intended selection logic is only implied.

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