ep_trust_gate

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses it returns allow/review/deny with reason, implying a read-only check. It does not detail side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or the meaning of return values. Basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance and return value. Very concise and front-loaded.

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?

Describes return value but not the meaning of allow/review/deny or how policies work. No output schema. Adequate for a simple gate but could explain outcomes better. Some gaps in completeness.

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%, but the description adds little beyond schema. It mentions entity and action implicitly, but does not elaborate on optional parameters like policy or value_usd. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already describes parameters.

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's purpose: checking trust threshold before high-stakes actions. It uses specific verbs and resources, and provides examples. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ep_trust_evaluate or ep_trust_profile.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: before payments, messages, installations, etc. It gives clear context but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools. The phrase 'canonical pre-action check' implies it is the primary option.

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