check_trust

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return structure (overall score, per-dimension breakdown, badges) and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention any destructive side effects or auth requirements, but the lack of annotations is a gap, not a contradiction.

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 concise sentences: first sentence states the action and outputs, second provides usage guidance. 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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, key outputs, and usage hint. It lacks details on optional parameter interactions or default behavior when multiple params are provided, but the return structure is sufficiently explained.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds value by listing the return fields and usage hint, but no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is elevated to 4 because the description explains what the tool returns, which helps in parameter choice.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'AgentForge Trust Score for an MCP server', specifying what is returned (score, breakdown, badges) and distincts from siblings like list_trusted (which lists multiple) and evaluate_policy (which evaluates policies).

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 ends with 'Use before connecting to any MCP server', providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternative tools for other purposes, which would be helpful.

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