get_trust_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, and the description explains what is returned (approval record and autonomy state). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, nor does it mention any authorization requirements or scope limitations beyond the schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and value. The dash adds relevant contextual detail without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (approval record and autonomy state) and why it matters (evidence behind promotion decisions). It could mention that serverId can be used to filter by server, but that is already covered in the schema, so the description is nearly complete.

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 schema already provides a clear description for the only parameter ('Omit to see every server'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning about parameter usage or formatting, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 what the tool does: 'Show the approval record and autonomy state for every governed tool.' The verb 'Show' is specific, the resource is well-defined, and the added context about 'evidence behind each promotion decision' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audit_log or list_pending_approvals.

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 the tool is used to view trust status and promotion evidence, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives such as get_audit_log or list_pending_approvals. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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