faf_trust

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing what the tool does: it returns a receipt containing validity, score, and a deterministic parity hash. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover potential side effects like session changes.

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 (three sentences), front-loads the purpose, and includes key details without extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While the description explains the tool's purpose and return value, it omits important context about the path parameter being optional and setting session context for subsequent calls. Given that the output schema exists, the return is covered, but the side effect on session is not mentioned, leaving a gap in completeness.

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 input schema covers the single parameter 'path' with a description that already explains it sets session context. The tool description does not add further parameter details. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool attests a project.faf's integrity, listing specific components (validity, score, parity hash) and uses the verb 'attest', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like faf_score or faf_about. It provides a distinct purpose.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to prove a score is genuine and untampered.' This tells the agent when to apply the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context implies it's for trust verification, setting it apart from other faf tools.

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