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. It discloses that the token is 'short-lived' and 'scoped', which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'short-lived' means (e.g., expiration time). For a tool that likely involves security-sensitive operations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Request a short-lived access token for an agent') and followed by return details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (security-related token request), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., token structure), error handling, or dependencies (e.g., requires prior agent registration). For a tool with three parameters and potential side effects, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 documents all three parameters (agent_id, scope, provider_id) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'scope' defines permissions and 'provider_id' targets a specific provider, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Request a short-lived access token') and the resource ('for an agent'), with the return value specified. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vorim_grant_permission' or 'vorim_delegate_credential' by focusing on token acquisition rather than permission management or credential delegation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'vorim_verify_trust' which might involve token validation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'for an agent' and 'for the specified provider', but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., agent registration) or contrast with siblings like 'vorim_delegate_credential' (which might handle longer-term credentials). Usage is implied through parameter context, but no explicit when/when-not statements are included.

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