current_identity

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Reports only; never edits,' which is a clear read-only guarantee. While it does not describe return format or error handling, the tool has no parameters and a single clear output, so this level of disclosure is adequate.

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 leads with the exact question it answers, then lists the return fields and the read-only nature. There is zero redundancy; every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and trivial complexity, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and that it never edits, which is everything needed to call it correctly. Siblings are unrelated, so no additional disambiguation is required.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline guideline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter details, but none 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 clearly states the tool answers the identity question, listing exactly what it returns (name, character, vibe, emoji, posture lines) and the fact that it only reports. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from its siblings (route_lesson, standing_files), which are completely unrelated in purpose.

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 when to use the tool: whenever the user asks about the current identity. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is so specific that no confusion arises. The clarification 'Reports only; never edits' also tells the agent not to attempt modifications via this tool.

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