vet_agent

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

The description is highly transparent about behaviors: it introspects and never calls a tool, it checks four specific dangers (nonexistent agent, money-moving tools without quantity, key material requests, payment to address with no history), and it returns 'unauditable' for 401/403. This fully compensates for the lack of annotations.

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 verbose and discursive, containing philosophical asides and meta-commentary (e.g., 'Deliberately does NOT grade how good the description reads'). It could be more concise while retaining the key points. The structure is a single paragraph rather than a clear list, reducing readability.

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 (vetting an agent with no output schema), the description explains the approach well but lacks specification of the return value. It mentions 'unauditable' for HTTP errors but does not describe the normal output format (e.g., boolean, risk score). This gap leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's output.

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 already describes the three parameters (url, chain, payTo) with 100% coverage. The description adds significant context beyond the schema, explaining how it interprets these parameters during vetting (e.g., checking for a QUANTITY field in tools, or a private key field). This enrichment justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 tool's purpose: to check if an agent is safe to connect to and pay. It explicitly lists four dangers it checks and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'vet_meme' and 'vet_approach' by focusing on safety and introspection, never calling a tool.

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?

The description implies usage (vet an agent before connecting/paying) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the context of checking dangers is clear.

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