trust_stack_info

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

With no annotations, the description provides sufficient behavioral context: it is a read-only info retrieval returning JSON with protocol list, overview, and installation instructions. It does not detail potential side effects, but for a data retrieval tool, the behavior is adequately transparent.

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 at three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes return details and context about the Agent Trust Stack. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter info tool with an output schema, the description completely covers the purpose, return structure, and relevance. It mentions all 7 protocols and the JSON contents, making it self-sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description's role is minimal. The input schema covers all parameters (none). Per guidelines, baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 function with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'information about all 7 Agent Trust Stack protocols'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like coc_* and get_trust_evidence which focus on specific actions or evidence, while this tool provides an overview of the entire stack.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to avoid it. While it is implied that users should call this when they need an overview of the trust stack protocols, there is no direct guidance on context or alternatives.

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