Return a public KYJ judge profile with scope-aware findings, official source links, evidence excerpts, and verification metadata. Do not present courtwide guidance as a judge's personal preference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| judge_slug | Yes | Canonical slug returned by find_judges |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output includes 'scope-aware findings, official source links, evidence excerpts, and verification metadata', and includes a specific caveat: 'Do not present courtwide guidance as a judge's personal preference.' This is valuable behavioral guidance.
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—two sentences that pack significant value. The first sentence enumerates return contents; the second provides an important behavioral boundary. 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?
Given the tool has a single parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and provides a specific behavioral caution. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand what it returns and how to avoid misuse.
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?
The only parameter (judge_slug) has 100% schema coverage with a description specifying it must be a 'Canonical slug returned by find_judges'. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so 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 returns a 'public KYJ judge profile' with specific content types (scope-aware findings, source links, excerpts, verification metadata). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_judge_biography by emphasizing the public and scope-aware nature of the profile.
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 implicitly indicates this is appropriate for retrieving a specific judge's profile via the required judge_slug. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_judge_biography or find_judges, and does not mention any prerequisites or fallbacks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: finding judges, retrieving biography, profile, presentation rules, AI abuse cases, or recent changes. There is no overlap or ambiguity; descriptions further clarify boundaries.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (find_*, get_*). The naming is predictable and easy to interpret, aiding agent selection.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a judge and courtroom information server. Each tool addresses a distinct need without bloat or triviality.
Core workflows (finding judges, retrieving bio/profile, presentation rules, tracking changes) are covered. A potential minor gap is a tool for historical courtroom rules or direct case lookups, but the current set supports common use cases adequately.
