agent_passport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns something about the agent's passport, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (likely, but not explicit), whether it requires authentication, what it returns in detail, or any side effects. The term 'паспорт' suggests a static reference, but that's not explicitly confirmed. Given no annotations and minimal information, this scores low.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks front-loading of the most critical information. It lists what the passport contains (purpose, boundaries, etc.), but it doesn't start with a clear verb phrase describing the action. The structure is acceptable, but it could be improved by leading with a verb like 'Retrieve' and then stating content. It earns a 3 for being succinct but not optimally structured.

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 tool's complexity is low (one parameter), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what the agent receives from this call. It doesn't state the return format, the type of data (e.g., JSON object with risk levels), or how the content can be used. The description is too terse to be complete; an agent would need to infer the structure and content of the result, which is a significant gap.

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 coverage is 0%, and there is only one parameter (agent_id). The description does not explain the meaning of agent_id beyond its name; it doesn't specify what format it should be in (e.g., a UUID), where to find it, or how it relates to 'agent'. Since the description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, and given low coverage, the agent may not know how to correctly provide agent_id.

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 'Паспорт агента: назначение, границы, классы риска и автономности' translates to 'Agent passport: purpose, boundaries, risk classes and autonomy levels', which clearly indicates this tool retrieves a specification of the agent's purpose, boundaries, risk classes, and autonomy. However, it does not specify the exact resource or action (e.g., whether it fetches or creates a passport), and it doesn't differentiate from siblings. It is more than a tautology but lacks explicit verb and resource clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_professions or verify_journal. The description implies it provides information about the agent, but it doesn't state a specific use case, such as 'Use this to retrieve the current agent's risk profile before executing actions.' No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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