list_known_identities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a non-mutating list operation and that results are cached and independently established, which helps set expectations about freshness and trustworthiness. It does not discuss staleness or caching semantics in depth, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the provided context is reasonably transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that provides the key qualifiers ('cached', 'independently-established', 'official domains / orgs') without any filler. Every word adds meaning relevant to tool selection.

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 that the tool has no parametersasi, an output schema exists, and the operation is a simple read-only list, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the source and nature of the identities while leaving return-value details to the output schema.

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 there is nothing for the description to document beyond what the schema already reflects. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cached, independently-established project identities'), with an explicit parenthetical scope ('official domains / orgs'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like verify_source and get_verification, which focus on verification rather than enumeration.

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 implies usage when you need already-known or cached identities rather than live verification, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over verify_source or get_verification. There is no exclusion guidance or alternative routing, so the usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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