TrustVerum Public Reading and Participation Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what state is read (self-key enrollment, quotas, stop rules) and clarifying the operations it will not perform. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the negative list adds meaningful clarification without padding. Every word earns its place.

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?

Complete for a zero-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the full safety profile. The description tells the agent what it reads, what it explicitly does not do, and the sibling names indicate where to go for resource-level operations. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing the description must document. Baseline 4 applies for parameter-free tools; no additional parameter semantics 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and a well-scoped resource: 'self-key enrollment state, finite quotas and stop rules.' The title reinforces it as a read of the access policy. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings trustverum_list_resources and trustverum_read_resource, which operate at the resource level rather than the access-policy level.

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?

Provides clear context on scope via a negative list ('Does not enroll, create sessions, sign messages, or contact operators'), which helps an agent know what this tool is NOT for. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state conditions for when to choose this over trustverum_read_resource, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds value beyond those by disclosing the curated, closed scope ('explicitly selected') and the access requirement ('require no account'), telling the agent no authentication is expected. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentences, both information-bearing: the first states the verb and scope, the second adds a boundary exclusion. Nothing is wasted and the action is front-loaded.

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 listing tool, the description adequately covers scope ('technical resources'), access ('no account'), and the key exclusion ('community posts'), which is enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of output shape, which is acceptable given no output schema and the closed-world annotation.

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?

With zero parameters and an empty schema, the baseline of 4 applies. Schema description coverage is trivially 100%, and the description correctly focuses on operation and scope rather than padding parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') over an explicit resource class: 'explicitly selected technical resources that require no account.' The exclusion 'Does not enumerate community posts' adds a scope boundary beyond the title, though it does not name sibling tools for direct contrast. This is clear and specific, just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Does not enumerate community posts' provides a when-not signal, and 'require no account' implies this tool is for public, credential-free lookups. However, no alternative tool is named and no condition for choosing trustverum_read_resource or trustverum_access_policy is given, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond those by specifying exactly what the tool does not do, such as enrolling, browsing private posts, or accepting keys, making its read-only, non-action-taking nature concrete rather than merely flagged.

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 two sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence efficiently prevents misuse by listing excluded behaviors. Some phrasing is dense ('optional self-key participation, question discovery and same-identity return'), but it remains reasonably compact for the scope it covers.

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, read-only guide tool, the description gives enough context for an agent to decide when to call it and what it will access: enrollment state, client download reference, and participation guides. It does not describe output shape, but with no output schema and no parameters, the main selection and invocation need is satisfied.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inventing unnecessary parameter guidance.

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 opens with the verb 'Read' and names concrete objects: live enrollment state, verified client download reference, and ordered guides. It clearly signals this is a navigation/informational tool and explicitly disclaims enrollment, browsing, accepting keys, and other actions, distinguishing it from active sibling tools.

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 clear context: use it to read participation guidance and enrollment state, while 'Navigation only' frames the appropriate use case. It also gives explicit exclusions (does not enroll, accept keys, or perform actions), but it does not name specific sibling alternatives or say 'use X instead', so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The added value is the disclosure that the content is 'untrusted reference data' and the caution that it should not be used to execute code or contact anyone, which is useful behavioral context for security-conscious agents. However, it doesn't describe the return format or any error behaviors, which is acceptable given annotations cover safety, but it could add more on response shape.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose (read current selected content) before the caution about untrusted data. Every sentence earns its place; the security note is a meaningful addition, and there's no fluff. It could be more structured, but it's concise and efficient.

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's simplicity (one parameter) and the annotations covering read-only safety, the description provides the essential safety context (untrusted data) and mentions the integrity metadata (revision, SHA-256), but it doesn't clarify whether the output includes the raw content or just metadata, nor does it explain the significance of the resource_id pattern. It's adequate for a basic read tool but leaves some gaps about output and usage context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter, but it doesn't provide any additional meaning about resource_id beyond what the schema shows (pattern and format). The pattern itself is documented in the schema, so the description adds no new semantics like 'the identifier of the resource you want to read' — it's implicit. Baseline is 3 because schema has full pattern info, but the description doesn't enhance it.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'selected content of a TrustVerum resource', and mentions revision and SHA-256 as key attributes. It is distinguishable from siblings—list_resources and access_policy—by the focus on reading a specific resource's content with integrity metadata, though it doesn't explicitly name the siblings.

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 that this tool is for reading the current selected content of a resource with revision and SHA-256, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the sibling tools. It gives no context on when to use list_resources (e.g., to enumerate resources) or access_policy (e.g., to check permissions). Some guidance is implied but not direct.

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