Vorim AI — Agent Identity & Trust

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool logs events but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether this is a write operation (implied by 'log'), if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., confirmation or error response). The description is minimal and lacks operational details needed for safe invocation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a rationale. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a logging tool, making it easy to scan 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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 4 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the 'what' and 'why' but misses operational context like authentication needs, error handling, or return values. While the schema handles parameters well, the description should compensate for the absence of behavioral annotations, which it doesn't fully do.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'agent_id' as 'The agent that performed the action'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema already provides comprehensive 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 the tool's purpose: 'Log an audit event for an agent action.' It specifies the verb ('log') and resource ('audit event'), and the second sentence explains the rationale ('for compliance and traceability'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'vorim_export_audit' or 'vorim_list_agents', which might also relate to audit or agent management.

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 context with 'Every agent action should be logged,' suggesting this tool is for recording agent activities. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'vorim_export_audit' for retrieving logs or 'vorim_check_permission' for permission checks). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat open-ended.

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