agent-erc8004-bridge

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

Discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the output is order-independent, content-addressed, and unsigned. However, with no annotations, the description still omits critical aspects like permission requirements, reversibility, or persistence 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 sentences, both informative and front-loaded with the core action and expected output. No wasted words.

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 zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, and no parameter info in the description, the tool is under-documented. Output schema exists but the description does not reference it, leaving the agent with incomplete context for correct invocation.

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%, yet the description provides zero parameter semantics. Parameter names offer some hints, but the description does not compensate for the missing documentation, especially for proof_note.

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 the action (bind) and the two resources (fleet DID and ERC-8004 identity). Adds that it produces an unsigned, content-addressed attestation, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like verify_attestation or export_attestation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies a binding scenario, but there is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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 behavioral burden. It implies a read-only action via 'return,' but does not explicitly state whether there are side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. The return format is not described beyond what the output schema might already convey.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but not fully complete. It leaves 'bridge' undefined and does not explain what the 'input contract' means or when a user would call this. Given the lack of annotations and the presence of siblings, a bit more context would help, but it is not severely lacking.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'input contract,' which hints at parameter documentation, but since no parameters exist, it adds no extra meaning. No further elaboration is necessary.

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 uses a specific verb 'return' and identifies the resource as 'the bridge's capabilities and input contract.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bind_identity or resolve_agent, which perform different actions. However, the term 'bridge' is undefined and could be ambiguous for an agent unfamiliar with the system.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like list_registrations or score_agent.

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 carries the full burden. It discloses that the payload is unsigned, content-addressed, and does not perform the on-chain anchoring (since it's 'ready for YOUR OWN signer'). This clarifies a key non-obvious trait. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, if it has side effects, or if any preconditions (e.g., existing trust score) are required.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Export') and includes essential qualifiers (UNSIGNED, content-addressed, ready for signer). Every part adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous text.

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?

The description adequately conveys the core purpose and output format, and an output schema exists to handle return values. However, the lack of parameter explanation and usage alternatives leaves gaps. For a relatively simple tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description could offer more context to ensure correct invocation.

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 chain_id and token_id. It does not explain what these parameters represent or how they affect the export. The schema only provides minimal titles ('Chain Id', 'Token Id'), which is insufficient for an agent to know what values to supply.

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 exports the agent's trust score as an unsigned ERC-8004 payload, with specific verb ('Export') and resource ('current trust score'). It differentiates from siblings like verify_attestation (which verifies) and score_agent (which scores), and the 'UNSIGNED' qualifier makes its purpose 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?

The description implies usage: it is for when the user wants an unsigned payload to sign and anchor on-chain ('ready for YOUR OWN signer to anchor on-chain'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some room for interpretation.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention idempotency per feedback_id, a valuable behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as whether existing feedback is overwritten or ignored, permissions required, or side effects beyond the import. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 states the primary action, the second sentence provides the item format, and the final clause adds the idempotency behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description provides core behavioral context (import, item format, idempotency) and the output schema is available, so return values need not be explained. However, it lacks details on parameter semantics for chain_id/token_id and does not mention what happens on duplicate feedback_id. Minor gaps, but overall the description is reasonably complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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. It does clarify the structure of the 'feedback' array items with fields like 'value', 'at', 'source?', 'weight?', 'feedback_id?', which is helpful. However, it does not explain 'chain_id' or 'token_id' beyond implying they identify the agent/registry context. This leaves some parameters under-specified.

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 action: 'Import ERC-8004 Reputation Registry feedback records for an agent.' It clearly identifies the resource (feedback records in the ERC-8004 registry) and the verb (import). The mention of ERC-8004 distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_registration, which likely handles registrations. The item format and idempotency note further clarify the tool's 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 provides clear context that this tool is for importing feedback records, and the name 'import_feedback' distinguishes it from siblings like import_registration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or refer to alternative tools. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer its primary use case, but explicit alternatives are absent.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states idempotency ('re-import updates in place') and the return value (canonical record with deterministic bridge DID), which are important behavioral traits. It does not cover permissions or failure modes, but the disclosed traits are significant.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding idempotency and return information. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 5-parameter import tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it imports, how it behaves on re-import, and what it returns. The omission of the optional 'metadata' parameter and any permission context is a minor gap, but the core functionality is sufficiently described given the output schema exists.

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 description adds semantic context by explaining that the record consists of chain_id, token_id (ERC-721), agent_uri, and owner, which enriches the bare schema. However, it omits the 'metadata' parameter entirely and does not elaborate on field formats or constraints, leaving the description only partially compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 action ('Import') and the specific resource ('ERC-8004 Identity Registry record'), enumerating the key fields (chain_id, token_id, agent_uri, owner). This is distinct from sibling tools like import_feedback, making the purpose 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?

The description indicates the tool is for importing or re-importing (updating) records, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings, so it does not fully achieve a 5.

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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists all imported ERC-8004 registrations, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or any additional behavioral traits, leaving some gaps for a listing tool.

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, concise sentence with six words. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (no parameters) and an output schema that likely defines the return structure, the description is sufficiently complete for basic usage. It lacks explicit usage guidance but is otherwise adequate for a simple list tool.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add param details. No redundancy or missing param semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('imported ERC-8004 registrations'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like import_registration. The scope ('all imported') is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 viewing previously imported registrations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the context to be inferred from the tool name and siblings.

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 the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing whether it is read-only, error behavior when not found, or what the resolve operation entails. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and clearly states the resource and lookup criteria. No unnecessary words or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with 3 optional parameters and an output schema, but it omits important usage details such as whether the parameters are mutually exclusive and what happens if the registration is not found. It provides the core purpose but lacks depth given the absence of annotations.

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 0% schema coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains that resolution can be done either by bridge_did or by the (chain_id, token_id) pair, adding semantic value. However, it does not specify constraints like mutual exclusivity or value formats, leaving some ambiguity.

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 has a specific verb 'Resolve' and identifies the resource as an 'imported ERC-8004 registration', with two distinct lookup methods (bridge DID or chain_id/token_id). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like import_registration or bind_identity, which perform different operations.

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 that this tool is used to resolve a registration via one of two lookup methods, implying its purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to siblings like list_registrations, so it stops short of full when/when-not 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: decay-weighted recency, neutral 0.5 prior for no feedback, and the rationale ('no blind trust, no unfair zero'). This goes beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't detail tier computation or error handling.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Decay-weighted trust score in [0,1] + tier'). It includes meaningful details without unnecessary verbosity, though the dash-heavy structure could be slightly clearer.

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?

The description explains the scoring logic well, but for a tool with three optional parameters and no parameter descriptions, it lacks essential input context. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage guidance prevent the description from being fully complete for an agent invoking this tool.

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 mention any of the parameters (chain_id, token_id, bridge_did) or how they relate to the agent being scored. The agent is left without any information about what values to supply or their semantic meaning, making parameter selection effectively guesswork.

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 computes a decay-weighted trust score and tier from imported ERC-8004 feedback. It uses a specific verb ('score') and resource ('agent's imported feedback'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_agent or resolve_agent.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for obtaining a trust score, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with resolve_agent or describe_agent. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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 carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior—recomputing a content hash and reporting intactness—but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it compares against a stored attestation, or what failures may occur.

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?

A single, focused sentence immediately states the action and result with no unnecessary words.

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 verification tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the short description covers the essential purpose. It lacks usage context and detailed parameter guidance, but the output schema offsets the need to explain return values.

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 only adds that the payload is the object whose hash is recomputed. It does not describe expected payload structure, nested properties, or any required internal fields, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of 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 uses a specific verb ('Recompute') and resource ('payload's content hash'), clearly stating the tool verifies integrity by recomputing the hash. This distinguishes it from siblings like export_attestation or score_agent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the operation description.

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