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 states the tool registers agents and returns specific data (agent_id, did:key, keypair), but lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what 'auto-expire' entails operationally. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key traits ('short-lived agents that auto-expire'), with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the return values into a distinct clause for clarity.

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 complexity of registering agents with identity and permissions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error conditions, the significance of returned values, and how this tool fits into the broader agent lifecycle compared to siblings like 'vorim_update_agent' or 'vorim_revoke_agent'.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema (capabilities, scopes, ttl_seconds). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints not in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Register') and resource ('ephemeral agent with a did:key identity'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'vorim_register_agent' by specifying 'ephemeral' and 'short-lived agents that auto-expire'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the non-ephemeral registration tool, missing full sibling differentiation.

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 mentions 'short-lived agents that auto-expire', which implies usage for temporary needs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vorim_register_agent' or other agent-related tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or clear context for selection.

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