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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return data (name, status, trust score, capabilities, permissions, metadata), which is helpful, but does not cover other behavioral aspects such as error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated). The description adds value but leaves gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, input, and output. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes no redundant information, making it highly concise and effective.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for a simple retrieval operation. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on behavioral aspects like error cases or data formats, but it meets the minimum requirements for this 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'agent_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since there is only one parameter and the schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'agent_id' reinforces the parameter's purpose, slightly elevating the score.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('a specific agent by agent_id'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'vorim_list_agents' (which lists multiple agents) and 'vorim_update_agent' (which modifies an agent). The verb 'Get' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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 by specifying 'a specific agent by agent_id', suggesting it should be used when you have a particular agent identifier. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'vorim_list_agents' for browsing agents or 'vorim_update_agent' for modifying agents, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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