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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool returns an Ed25519 keypair, agent_id, and trust score; it warns that the private key is shown only once and must be stored securely. This covers critical security and operational aspects, though it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and critical behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and return values, the second provides essential security guidance with zero waste or redundancy.

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 (registration with security implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the return structure (keypair, agent_id, trust score) and security warning. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential prerequisites (e.g., authentication needed) or what happens on failure, though the security guidance partially compensates for the lack of structured fields.

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 fully documents all four parameters (name, description, capabilities, scopes) with clear descriptions and requirements. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Register a new AI agent with Vorim') and the resource ('AI agent'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vorim_get_agent (retrieval) or vorim_revoke_agent (deletion). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 mentioning the return of an agent identity and private key, suggesting this is for initial setup. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vorim_register_ephemeral (for temporary agents) or vorim_update_agent (for modifications), leaving some ambiguity about sibling differentiation.

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