get_verdict

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the output types (allow/warn/block, monitoring status, publisher posture) and ties them to scan findings. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but provides only partial 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 three sentences long, each packed with essential information: purpose, output details, and usage guidance. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage. The output is described qualitatively (allow/warn/block, monitoring status, publisher posture). However, without an output schema, the description could be more precise about the structure of the return value.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'npm' described as 'npm package name.' The description adds meaning by specifying the package is an MCP package and that the verdict is based on scan findings, going beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 retrieves a trust verdict (allow, warn, block) for an MCP package, based on scan findings, and also reports monitoring status and publisher posture. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('trust verdict for MCP package'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scan_package' (which likely performs the scan) and 'check_abuse' (which checks for abuse specifically).

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 'Use this before installing or connecting to an MCP server,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes, though the sibling tools suggest alternatives.

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