grove_get_identity

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations by declaring that grove_read is required and that the identity is resolved from the specialist registry. It also clarifies the output semantics, including the optionality of registered role/display name. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence explains the core purpose, the second gives the required permission, and the third resolves potential confusion with the human-facing variant. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary filler.

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 simple read-only identity retrieval tool, the description covers the scope, key output fields, permission requirement, and disambiguation from the canonical version. The main gap is the complete lack of documentation for the app_id input parameter, which prevents the context from being fully complete.

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 only parameter, app_id, has zero schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. An agent cannot infer whether app_id selects a different identity, overrides a default, or is relevant only in specific cases. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare property name and default value.

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 that the tool resolves this agent's own Grove identity from the specialist registry and explicitly lists the expected outputs: app_id, grove_sender, and role/display name. It also distinguishes this agent-side tool from the human/dashboard variant, leaving no ambiguity about what is returned.

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 provides a clear usage context: use this for agent-side Grove identity, as opposed to the human/dashboard version. It also states the prerequisite grove_read. It stops short of explicitly enumerating when not to use it or naming direct sibling alternatives, but the intended context is well implied.

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