agentic_interaction_trust

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (triage recommendation, trust signal, decision-readiness score, missing trust evidence), its scope ('Evidence triage only'), and a key operational constraint (human review required). It does not mention authentication requirements or side effects, but 'triage' and 'evidence triage only' imply a read-only analysis.

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 dense but purposeful: purpose, input contract, return values, scope boundaries, and human-review requirement are all covered in three sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The only minor redundancy is repeating the 'evidence triage only' boundary after already saying 'not cybersecurity monitoring, identity verification, or authorization'.

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 nested input object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a solid job: it specifies the required input shape, the return components, the non-goals, and the human-review requirement. The reference to an external schema file and get_schema adds a small dependency, but the description is still sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool and what to pass.

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% because trust_request has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the list of key fields (actor, target_surface, requested_action, dated_sources, risk_question, decision_stage) and references the schema file, but it does not explain the semantics of each field beyond their names. The schema's own description points to get_schema for the full nested contract, which is helpful but not fully self-contained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Triage the trust evidence for an agent-mediated interaction' before a high-stakes action. It also names the exact input contract and output components, and explicitly distinguishes itself from cybersecurity monitoring, identity verification, and authorization, making it clearly separable from siblings like pre_action_check and validate_evidence.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool ('before a high-stakes action executes') and what input to pass. It also provides exclusions ('not cybersecurity monitoring, identity verification, or authorization') and notes human review is required. However, it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than fully explicit.

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