ep_initiate_handshake

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

No annotations provided; description mentions requirements but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or lifecycle implications beyond initiating a handshake.

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 with no fluff, front-loaded with action verb, efficient and clear.

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?

Given no output schema and complexity of handshake initiation, description covers purpose and core requirements; could explain what the tool returns or next steps but is reasonably complete.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions; description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 initiates an EP Handshake, a structured identity exchange between parties, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ep_verify_handshake or ep_revoke_handshake.

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 notes requirements (min 2 parties, governing trust policy) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives 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.