Retrieves a skill's trust score, grade, rationale, and provenance so agents can assess whether that skill is safe to execute.
Full trust detail (score, grade, rationale, provenance) for one skill.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill | Yes | skill id, e.g. research-brain/idea-scout |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the returned fields (score, grade, rationale, provenance), which is real behavioral content for a read. It does not say what happens for an unknown skill id (error vs empty), whether the call is side-effect free, or whether results are cached/stale — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and the exact payload fields; no filler, no restatement of the tool name, nothing extraneous to trim.
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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description does the important work of enumerating what comes back, which is exactly what the missing output schema would otherwise have to say. Only the unknown-id behavior and sibling differentiation are absent.
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?
There is a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already gives an example identifier format (research-brain/idea-scout). The description only reinforces that exactly one skill is expected, adding no new syntax or lookup guidance, so the 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?
"Full trust detail (score, grade, rationale, provenance) for one skill" states a specific retrieval action, the resource (trust record), the cardinality (one skill), and enumerates the payload fields. It is clear what the tool yields, though it does not name how it differs from near neighbors like warden__audit or warden__list.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer that this is the drill-down for a skill surfaced by warden__list, and gets no hint about how it relates to warden__audit or when a full detail fetch is warranted over a summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.