strale_trust_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and comprehensively discloses return values (SQS score, A-F grades, 30-day pass rate, cost envelope) and behavioral guidance (call directly, retry with backoff, queue, or fallback).

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?

Two information-dense sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads purpose and detailed return structure; second provides usage context. Appropriate length for a tool with no output schema requiring manual return documentation.

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?

Excellent completeness given no output schema exists. Description compensates by enumerating all return fields (scores, grades, limitations, cost) and explaining the decision-making framework, fully preparing the agent to interpret results.

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 100% with both 'slug' and 'type' fully documented in the input schema. The description references 'capability' implicitly mapping to the slug parameter, but primarily focuses on return values rather than adding parameter semantics.

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 uses specific verb 'Check' with resource 'capability reliability' and scope 'before calling it', clearly distinguishing this introspection tool from sibling execution tools like strale_execute.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to decide whether a capability is safe for production use right now' and implies the workflow order (check before calling) relative to strale_execute, with clear decision points for execution strategies.

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