nexo_cognitive_trust

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 discloses that the tool can view or adjust a trust score, but it does not describe side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, persistence, or reversibility of adjustments. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and mode distinction, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The description lacks important context: it does not specify what the view operation returns (e.g., the current score), nor does it mention the effect of the 'delta' parameter or the interaction with other cognitive tools. Given the richness of sibling tools, this minimal description underinforms the agent.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema: it reiterates the event parameter's role but does not explain the 'delta' parameter or provide deeper semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: viewing or adjusting a trust score (0-100). It specifies the behavioral distinction between no arguments (view) and providing an event (adjust), which uniquely identifies this tool among siblings.

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 explicitly covers when to use each mode (view vs. adjust) based on arguments. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like nexo_cognitive_stats, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The internal usage is clear.

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