trust_boundary_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one important behavioral trait—'without exposing credentials'—which signals a security-conscious read operation. But it does not explicitly state read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and a key constraint. No wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers what is reported and a key security constraint, but for a status tool with no annotations it could specify read-only behavior or usage context. Still largely complete for its simplicity.

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?

Zero parameters, and the schema is empty; the baseline for no params is 4. Schema coverage is 100%, so no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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?

Specific verb 'Report' and resource 'MongoDB trust-boundary posture' are stated, making the tool's intent clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling status tools like fast_judgment_status or audit_status, so an agent must infer its niche.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives mentioned. The description only says what it does, leaving the agent to guess when this status is relevant versus the many other status tools.

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