Trust Gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool takes a caller-provided list, ranks by worst-regret, and produces a signed receipt. It also explains the limitation about auto-discovery. It lacks details like whether it is read-only, but overall is fairly transparent for a tool that produces a receipt.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key constraint.

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 complexity (ranking by regret, producing a receipt) and presence of an output schema, the description could have explained what 'worst-regret' means or the format of the receipt. It provides adequate context but leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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%, and the description does not explain the individual parameters. The 'inventory' parameter is implied as a list of MCP tools but no structure or required fields are specified. The optional 'notes' parameter is not mentioned. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool ranks a caller-provided list of MCP tools by worst-regret with a signed receipt. It is specific, uses a verb (rank) and resource (list), and distinguishes from sibling tools that mint or verify receipts, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 explains that the tool cannot auto-discover inventory, so the caller must pass it in, which helps set expectations. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or state when not to use it.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'post-quantum receipt' implying cryptographic behavior, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The behavior is minimally transparent.

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 sentence, concise with no superfluous words. However, it is too brief for a tool with six parameters, leaving out critical parameter semantics.

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 presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, with six parameters and zero schema coverage, the description fails to provide enough context for correct usage. Sibling differentiation is implicit but not elaborated.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the six parameters. While agent_id, operation, and target are self-explanatory, parameters like inputs, policy, and decision have defaults but are not explained in the description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool mints a post-quantum receipt for any consequential agent action. The verb 'mint' and resource 'post-quantum receipt for an arbitrary consequential agent action' are specific. Among siblings, it stands out as the general-purpose receipt minting tool vs. mint_receipt_for_record_change which is specific to record changes, and verify_receipt which is for verification.

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 for arbitrary consequential agent actions, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like mint_receipt_for_record_change or verify_receipt. No contraindications or alternative guidance is provided.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses cryptographic nature (post-quantum, SHA-256) and that it mints a receipt (write operation). Lacks details on idempotency, permissions, or side effects.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with key information: purpose, cryptographic detail, and compatibility. No fluff.

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?

With 8 parameters (6 required) and no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. Lacks parameter explanations and usage scenarios.

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 coverage is 0%, description adds no parameter context. Mentions 'old/new values' but does not explain parameters like 'field', 'policy', 'tenant', or 'changed_by_agent'. Relies solely on schema names.

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?

Clearly states it mints a receipt for a CRM record change, mentions post-quantum and SHA-256 hashes. Distinguishes from sibling 'mint_action_receipt' by specifying 'record change' vs general action.

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?

Implies usage for CRM record changes, mentions compatibility with any CRM. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings like 'mint_action_receipt' or 'verify_receipt'.

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?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It adds value by explaining that require_pq=True causes failure if specific signatures are missing, defending against downgrade attacks. However, it does not describe success behavior, return values, idempotency, or side effects. Some behavioral context is provided but not comprehensive.

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, each serving a purpose: first defines the action, second explains a key parameter and its security implication. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently structured.

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 presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main verification action, offline mode, and a critical parameter. Missing details about return values are likely covered by the output schema, and the receipt parameter structure could be elaborated, but overall it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0% as the description does not detail the receipt parameter's structure. It does explain require_pq's effect and default, adding meaning beyond the schema. For a 2-parameter tool with low coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves the receipt parameter inadequately described.

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's purpose: 'Verify a Trust Gate receipt from the certificate alone (offline).' This uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mint_action_receipt and mint_receipt_for_record_change, which focus on minting rather than verification.

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 for verification use cases, especially when needing to verify offline. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings, but the verb 'verify' and context of offline operation provide clear guidance. The sibling tools are about minting and auditing, so distinction is clear.

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