check_trust_score

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses output format (0-10 score across 4 dimensions) and enhanced safety scanning for AI skills. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, 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?

Description is concise, front-loading the purpose and then providing details on inputs and special cases. No wasted sentences, though a slightly more structured format could improve scannability.

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 (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers inputs, output, and an additional condition (enhanced scanning for AI skills). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand usage.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage. The description and schema both list accepted input formats; description adds minor variations like 'npm:@scope/name' but generally repeats schema info. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 scores trustworthiness for AI skills, MCP servers, or GitHub repos, returning a score across 4 dimensions. It lists accepted input types, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'scan_safety' or 'list_packages'.

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 when to use: to check trustworthiness of various resources. Mentions enhanced scanning for AI skills and notes the need for an API key for full reports. However, it does not specify when not to use or compare with alternatives.

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