hyperspace_get_trust_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only evaluation, what the trust score represents or its scale, or whether curvature meaningfully changes results. Only the input prerequisites are disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and prerequisites second; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than padded.

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?

A 3-parameter evaluation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain what comes back and how to read the score. That information is entirely absent, leaving the agent unable to interpret results.

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%, so the schema already documents collection, trajectory_ids, and curvature; the description merely repeats the two required ones. It adds no meaning for 'curvature', which the schema undersells as 'Curvature parameter'. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluate stability and trust score' for a 'thought trajectory path'. An agent can grasp the operation, but the description never distinguishes it from nearby siblings like hyperspace_analyze_thought_stability or hyperspace_analyze_geometry, so overlap risk remains.

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?

It names the required inputs but never says when to call this versus analyze_thought_stability, predict_momentum, or graph_traverse. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance at all.

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