jis_request_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'bilateral intent' and 'mutual consent' but does not explain what happens after the request (e.g., whether approval is needed, side effects, or authorization requirements). The behavioral implications are underspecified.

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 concise with two short sentences, but it could be more focused by placing the key action ('Request bilateral intent') first. It avoids redundancies and is reasonably efficient.

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 the schema covers all parameters and no output schema exists, the description minimally explains the tool's purpose. However, it lacks details on expected behavior, error cases, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving gaps for a core interaction tool.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including enum for 'purpose'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('request bilateral intent') and the target ('from a jis: identity'), with a specific verb and resource. It also provides philosophical context about mutual consent, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jis_verify or jis_whoami, which serve different purposes.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies that this is a prerequisite for interaction ('no interaction without mutual consent'), it does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the AI agent to infer usage context.

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