faf_trust

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Validate', which is consistent but gives no additional behavioral disclosures (e.g., return format, rate limits). Meets baseline expectation.

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 sentence with emojis, conveying the purpose efficiently. It could be slightly more structured but remains concise and front-loaded.

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 no parameters and output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks explanation of what 'trust metrics' entail or what the tool returns, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline score of 4 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 states 'Validate project.faf integrity - Trust metrics' which clearly indicates the tool's function. However, the use of jargon like 'project DNA' could be more precise. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying trust metrics.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., faf_score, faf_check), the description should clarify when to prefer faf_trust.

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