signalgrid_trust_verdict

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' More importantly, it adds rich behavioral detail about fail-safe logic: 'Unknown is never allow,' the bar rises to step_up on unreadable controls, and restrictions/denials occur under specific conditions. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 yet information-dense, with a clear two-paragraph structure plus a return list. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose; the second explains fail-safe behavior; the third lists return fields. No fluff or 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 the tool's complexity (composing multiple security signals into a verdict) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the verdict values, the fail-safe policy, and the return structure. It also clarifies the scope ('single-device verdict') and the fusion with other signals, leaving no major 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. According to the scoring rule, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description instead focuses on the output 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 clearly states what the tool does: computes a fail-safe trust verdict (allow/step_up/restrict/deny) for the current Mac. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that collect individual data (e.g., signalgrid_mdm_status, signalgrid_xprotect_status) by producing a composed verdict with reasons.

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 gives useful context: it 'composes security posture, MDM enrollment, update settings, XProtect currency, and stranded system extensions,' implying it is the aggregation tool rather than a per-signal data source. It also cautions that the verdict is single-device and the final decision is fused elsewhere. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over individual sibling tools.

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