get_trust_boundary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It mentions it 'retrieves' data (implying read-only) and discloses the return format as 'markdown-formatted description.' However, it does not discuss error scenarios, permissions, or idempotency. The added markdown detail is useful but limited.

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 short but contains redundancy: the first sentence and the second sentence essentially repeat the same information. The Args/Returns structure is clear, but the duplicate statement could be removed. Slightly under-optimized for conciseness.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return format. However, it lacks usage guidance, relation to siblings, and any prerequisites or error conditions. The context signals indicate a low-complexity tool, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The parameter 'id' is described consistently as 'ID of the trust boundary to retrieve' in both places. As per the rubric, high schema coverage leads to a baseline of 3, and no additional semantic value is provided.

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 provides a clear verb+resource combination: 'Get details about a specific trust boundary.' It clearly indicates the tool retrieves details for a single trust boundary, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_trust_boundaries or add_trust_boundary. The phrase 'in the system architecture' adds helpful context.

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?

Usage guidance is implied: the tool is used when an ID is known and details are needed. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_trust_boundaries or get_trust_boundary_analysis_plan. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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