Vorim AI — Agent Identity & Trust

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the return values (boolean allowed, reason if denied, remaining quota) and performance characteristics ('Sub-5ms via Redis cache'). However, it does not mention error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and performance note in a single, efficient sentence. Every element adds value without waste, making it easy for an AI agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining return values and performance. However, it lacks details on error cases or system dependencies (e.g., Redis availability), which could be important for a permission-checking tool. It is mostly complete but has minor gaps in behavioral context.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('agent_id' and 'scope') with descriptions. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema by implying the scope examples ('e.g. agent:read, agent:execute'), but this is redundant with the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Check if an agent has a specific permission scope') and the resource ('permission scope'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'vorim_grant_permission' or 'vorim_revoke_permission' which modify permissions rather than checking them. It also specifies the return format, which helps differentiate its read-only nature.

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 implies usage for permission verification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vorim_list_permissions' or 'vorim_verify_trust'. It provides context (e.g., 'Sub-5ms via Redis cache') that suggests use cases requiring fast checks, but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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