Get reputation (the intelligent metric)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the reputation is based on verified outcomes and is un-gameable, giving insight into its reliability. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or disclose potential side effects, but given it is a read function, the description is sufficient.

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 two sentences that are concise and front-loaded. The first sentence explains the core function and components, and the second adds value by contextualizing the importance. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description explains what the reputation is but does not specify the return format or structure. With no output schema, the agent may need to infer or discover the response type. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter 'agent' is a required string, and the description does not explicitly define its format or semantics beyond the tool's context. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal value; however, it is implicitly clear that 'agent' refers to the identity whose reputation is being read.

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 it reads an agent's reputation, specifying the components (Brier score, stake-weighting, behavioral consistency) and the purpose (establishing trust). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhinogent_identity or rhinogent_mandate, as the focus is on reputation assessment.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to assess trustworthiness, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, so the guidance is minimal.

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