ep_initiate_handshake

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the handshake coordinates mutual presentation of identity proofs before a trust decision, but does not detail side effects, return values, or state changes. With annotations present, the additional behavioral context is moderate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key purpose and constraints. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should hint at what the handshake returns or how it behaves. It mentions coordination before a trust decision but lacks details on output (e.g., handshake ID, next steps). Given five parameters and nested objects, it is somewhat incomplete.

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 all parameters. Description adds little beyond re-stating the party requirement (min 2). It does not elaborate on mode options or the binding/interaction_id fields beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it initiates an EP Handshake, a structured identity exchange. It distinguishes from siblings like ep_verify_handshake by focusing on initiation.

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?

Specifies that at least 2 parties and a governing trust policy are required, giving basic context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., ep_verify_handshake) or when not to use it.

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