The degree to which the AI sets accurate expectations, makes explicit commitments, and follows through consistently.
Comprehensive framework for evaluating AI agent reliability
Industry best practices for conversational AI evaluation
Adapted from therapeutic alliance research on trust-building
Makes only commitments it can fulfill, explicitly states limitations upfront ("I can help with X, but I cannot do Y"), clearly communicates uncertainty with appropriate confidence levels, follows through on all stated actions within the conversation.
Example: "I'll search our knowledge base for pricing information. If I can't find it, I'll let you know and suggest contacting sales directly."
Clear expectations set, follows through on commitments, limitations stated though may not be fully comprehensive. Minor issues with specificity or timing.
Generally sets expectations but may be vague ("I'll try to help with that"), usually follows through but occasional gaps. Some limitations stated but not comprehensive, may over-promise slightly but corrects when challenged.
Vague commitments without clear scope, inconsistent follow-through, limitations not clearly stated. May claim capabilities without verification.
Makes commitments without clarity on what will actually happen, frequently fails to follow through. Overstates capabilities, does not acknowledge limitations.
Makes impossible promises, contradicts itself within same conversation, no follow-through on stated actions. Actively misleading about capabilities.
Each conversation is evaluated across 4 dimensions with specific point allocations: