gage_identity

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real context that the key derives four word-pairs and what they are for, but it never states that this is a side-effect-free local read, that it is instant or offline, or what happens if no identity has been created yet, so the safety and failure profile remains implicit.

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?

Two sentences, the payload is front-loaded and the second sentence explains the one non-obvious element, the word-pairs. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does: handle, public key, and four word-pairs. That is enough for a zero-argument identity read, though a note on the absent-identity case would close the remaining 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description reinforces this by framing the result as purely this machine's own identity, so an agent knows nothing needs to be supplied.

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 names the specific resource (this machine's gage identity) and enumerates its contents: handle, public key, and four derived word-pairs. It never names a sibling, so the boundary with gage_buddies or gage_pair_start must be inferred from the word 'identity', but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: by explaining that the word-pairs are what a colleague reads back, it hints this is the lookup step before gage_pair_confirm. There is no explicit 'call this when...' statement, no exclusion saying it is unrelated to buddy management, and no mention of when to prefer a sibling tool.

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