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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns events with a SHA-256 manifest for tamper-proof verification, indicating a read-only export with integrity features. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool handling audit data.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose and scope, the second explains the return value and verification feature. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place.

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 (exporting audit bundles with verification), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core functionality and output format but lacks details on authentication, data format, or error cases, which could hinder effective use.

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 fully documents the two parameters (from and to as ISO 8601 dates). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying date-range filtering, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Export a signed audit bundle') and resource ('for a date range'), distinguishing it from siblings like vorim_emit_event (emitting) or vorim_list_agents (listing). It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the 15 sibling tools. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose statement.

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