SINT Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool issues a token and returns a tokenId on success, which covers the basic outcome. However, it lacks details on critical behaviors: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., token persistence), error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and outcome. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. It could be slightly improved by structuring into separate purpose and result clauses, but it's already highly concise and well-organized.

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 complexity of issuing a token (a mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and return value but omits essential context: it doesn't explain the token's lifecycle, admin requirements, error handling, or how the token integrates with sibling tools. For a tool with 4 parameters and significant implications, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents all parameters (subject, resource, actions, expiresInHours). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. However, since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 action ('Issue a new capability token') and the resource ('capability token'), with the added detail of 'with restricted scope (admin)'. It distinguishes this from siblings like sint__revoke_token or sint__list_delegations by focusing on creation rather than management or querying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., sint__delegate_to_agent might also involve token-like operations), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'restricted scope (admin)', which implies an admin context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or direct comparisons to siblings like sint__delegate_to_agent or sint__approve. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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