supply_chain_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool returns 'current' state, implying a read-only snapshot, but omits details like cost, side effects, data freshness, or format. Minimal 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 with no extraneous words. Efficiently front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite a simple interface (no params, no output schema), the domain is complex. The description fails to clarify what 'trust graph state' includes (e.g., a list, summary, or status per package). Lacks essential detail for correct interpretation.

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 schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. However, the description adds no further meaning about what the output represents. It simply restates the name's implication, losing one point for lack of enrichment.

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 resource ('trust graph state' for 'all MCP server packages') with an implied retrieval verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_trust_status or compute_trust_score which focus on individual agents or scores.

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. Given many sibling trust tools, the description should indicate this is for a global overview versus agent-specific queries. Missing context on frequency or precedence.

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