compute_trust_score

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions 8 security dimensions but does not list them, explain calculation, output format, or prerequisites. The analogy helps but is insufficient for full transparency.

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?

Single sentence is highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words; the SSL Labs analogy efficiently conveys meaning.

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?

Lacks output schema or description of return value. With 5 optional parameters and no required fields, the agent lacks guidance on minimal inputs. No mention of error states or dependencies, making it incomplete for a scoring 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?

Schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so baseline 3 applies. It does not improve understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool computes a trust score (A+ to F) for MCP servers across 8 security dimensions, using the SSL Labs analogy which makes the purpose intuitive. It distinguishes from siblings like evaluate_agent_trust by focusing on server security dimensions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings include many trust/reputation tools, but the description does not specify scenarios or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without clear context for selection.

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