check_tool_trust

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions checking trust score and audit state but does not detail the response format, whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects. Adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The action verb 'Check' is front-loaded, and every word adds value. Highly 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (assumed to document return values), the description is nearly complete. A minor gap is lack of behavioral details, but overall sufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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?

Only one parameter 'name' with 0% schema documentation. The description adds 'by name', clarifying the parameter's role, but does not provide format or examples. Compensates partially for the lack of schema 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 it checks the Veragent trust score and audit state for a named MCP tool/server/agent. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_trusted_tools' (listing) and 'scan_mcp_stack' (scanning), providing a specific verb+resource.

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 instructs to use 'BEFORE installing or recommending an MCP tool to verify it is safe', giving clear context for when to use. While no explicit when-not or alternatives, the sibling names imply alternatives for other tasks.

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