assess_trust_principles

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, stateless, idempotent, has rate limits (free 10/day, pro unlimited), and requires no authentication. This goes beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 well-organized into sections (Args, Behavior, When to use, When NOT to use) and front-loads the core purpose. It is slightly lengthy but each part adds value. A minor improvement would be integrating the Behavior section more succinctly.

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 has 6 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description fully covers the purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter semantics. The output schema existence is noted, and the description mentions return format ('compliance status per principle with AI-specific findings'). No gaps.

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 explains 'system_description' (required), 'principles_in_scope' (default all 5), 'controls_implemented' (dict mapping), 'caller' (rate limiting), and 'tier' (access). However, 'api_key' is not mentioned, leaving a gap. Overall, adds significant value but not full 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 tool audits an AI system against the 5 SOC 2 Trust Service Criteria and returns compliance status per principle. It uses a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('AI system against SOC 2 criteria'), and differentiates from sibling tools like 'control_gap_analysis' by focusing on SOC 2 principles.

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 includes 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing clear context: use for gap analysis, readiness checks, compliance documentation; do not use as legal counsel. This gives excellent decision support.

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