wisdom_calculate_trust

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only offers a terse one-line purpose. The word 'placeholder' suggests the tool may not actually perform a real trust calculation, yet this is not elaborated. No mention is made of side effects, required preconditions, return behavior, or failure modes.

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 concise sentence with the key action front-loaded. The parenthetical 'placeholder for trust-path calculation' adds a useful qualifier about implementation status without bloating the text. It could add a bit more structure, but it is efficient for its length.

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?

This is a relatively specialized calculation tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no operational context. It doesn't explain what inputs beyond entity/perspective affect the result, what data the calculation depends on, or what the output looks like. The 'placeholder' status also leaves the agent uncertain whether calling this tool will return a meaningful result.

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 both parameters adequately. The description adds little beyond confirming that the calculation is entity-focused and trust-related. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair: 'Calculate effective trust for an entity'. It also hints at the underlying mechanism with 'trust-path calculation', which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like wisdom_trust_agent. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast it with any sibling, so it falls short of full 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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wisdom_trust_agent. The 'placeholder' note weakly implies it may not be production-ready, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema.

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