evaluate_agent_trust

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

No annotations provided. The description reveals it updates a posterior distribution but does not disclose whether it mutates state, requires permissions, or what the return value is. Missing critical behavioral details.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the main concept. However, it could be slightly restructured to include usage scope.

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 complex tool involving Bayesian inference, the description lacks details on output, state changes, and how it differs from sibling tools like agent_trust_status. Incomplete for effective use.

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 single parameter agentId is not mentioned in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning about the parameter beyond the name.

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 runs Bayesian bandit trust sampling using Thompson Sampling for an agent, mentioning Beta posterior and exploration/exploitation. It distinguishes from static trust scores but could be more explicit about the output.

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 versus alternatives like compute_trust_score or get_agent_reputation. The description assumes familiarity with Thompson Sampling without setting context.

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