list_identities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the filter behavior but does not disclose pagination, response format, or whether identities are limited to specific sources. For a straightforward listing tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the core functionality and optional filter.

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?

While the tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema), the description doesn't mention return format. For completeness, it should indicate it returns a list of identity objects. Current description is adequate but leaves a gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds little beyond the schema (it repeats the filter concept). Baseline is 3 for high coverage; no additional semantic enrichment.

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 defines the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('people known to the system'), and provides concrete examples (Git authors, Slack users). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'resolve_person' which likely focuses on a single 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., resolve_person, search_activities), an agent could benefit from direction such as 'Use this to browse all identities; for detailed info on a specific person use resolve_person.'

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