aip_trust_score

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 retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., numeric score, chain details). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, and there's no unnecessary information, making it efficient to read.

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 trust scoring and vouch chains, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, it fails to explain key aspects like return values, error conditions, or how the trust score is calculated. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'did' is 'The DID of the agent to check' and 'scope' is an 'Optional trust scope filter (e.g. GENERAL, CODE_SIGNING)', which provides basic context. However, with 0% schema description coverage and two parameters, this is insufficient to fully compensate, as it doesn't detail format constraints or usage examples.

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's purpose: 'Get the trust score and vouch chain for an agent.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('trust score and vouch chain'), and target ('an agent'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aip_verify' or 'aip_verify_signature', which might also involve trust-related checks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an optional 'scope' parameter but doesn't explain its purpose or when to apply it. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage unclear.

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