SINT Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation ('Show') that reveals sensitive authentication information. However, it doesn't disclose potential rate limits, whether this requires specific permissions, or how the information is formatted/structured in the response.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Show current agent identity') followed by specific details of what's included. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 identity query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned. However, it doesn't specify the format/structure of the returned data or mention any authentication requirements for accessing this sensitive identity information.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool returns rather than what it accepts. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 states the specific action ('Show') and the resource ('current agent identity'), listing the exact information returned (public key, active token, session info). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sint__status or sint__interface_status by focusing specifically on identity details rather than general system status.

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 context - when you need to verify or display the current agent's authentication and session state. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the specificity of 'identity' information provides some implicit differentiation.

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