trust_solution

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool marks trust for analyzer execution and warns that analyzer DLLs run in-process, indicating a security implication. However, it does not explain whether trust is additive or overwriting, or the effects of revoking trust. Still, it covers the essential behavioral trait and a key warning.

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-loads the primary purpose, and includes a crucial usage warning. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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 simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and usage constraint. However, it omits information about the return value or success/failure indication, which could affect an agent's ability to handle the response. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by reiterating the path format ('.sln/.slnx file or directory') and emphasizing the user confirmation requirement, which is not in the schema. This slightly elevates 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 tool marks a solution path or directory root as trusted for analyzer execution. It distinguishes from sibling tools like revoke_trust and list_trusted_paths by specifying the action and the prerequisite relationship with get_diagnostics.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (before get_diagnostics) and provides a critical warning: 'Always confirm with the user before calling this tool — analyzer DLLs run as in-process code.' This gives clear guidance and an exclusionary condition.

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