get_trusted

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that entries are filtered by min_trust and sorted by trust_score, implying a read-only operation. It does not discuss performance, errors, or edge cases like empty results, but the core behavior is covered.

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 concise (about 60 words), front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given an output schema exists (not shown), the description need not detail return format. It covers input parameters, filtering logic, and sorting. It could optionally mention that results are a list of entries, but the information is sufficient for an AI 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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It explains min_trust as 'Minimum trust score required (default: 3 = confirmed by 3+ agents)' and limit as 'Max entries to return (default: 20)', adding clear semantics beyond the schema's type and default.

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 gets cache entries confirmed by multiple agents (high trust). It distinguishes from siblings like cache_list (all entries) and cache_search by specifying the filtering condition. The verb 'Get' and resource 'cache entries (high trust)' are specific.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to find the most trustworthy precomputed results available.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude other cases or mention sibling alternatives, which would earn a 5.

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