RegEvidenceHub CableCert

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: deterministic reconciliation, duplicate/retest lineage checking, optional owner-supplied limit, and exact exceptions with source-file/row provenance. It does not disclose authorization or rate-limit considerations, but for a safe read tool that is a minor gap.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the primary reconcile action followed by secondary checks and the return guarantee. No filler. Could be marginally tightened but it earns its length.

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?

Return values are described even without an output schema, and the core behavior is clear for a safe read-only tool whose annotations cover the safety profile. The absence of usage guidance relative to siblings is the main remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does explain expected_ids ('expected Cable IDs'), the CSV evidence input, and the optional expected test limit, but source_file is only obliquely referenced via 'source-file provenance' and the format/syntax of csv_text and expected_test_limit is left unstated. Partial compensation only.

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?

States specific verbs and resources: reconcile expected Cable IDs against contractor certification CSV evidence, plus duplicate/retest lineage checks. It clearly conveys an audit function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling inspect_certification_package, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb contrast.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison against the siblings cablecert_service_info or inspect_certification_package. An agent has no signal for choosing this tool over inspect_certification_package.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds contextual value by stating the tool will describe QA scope, supported input, and safety boundary, which hints at the content of its output. No contradiction with annotations; the description adds modest context beyond them but doesn't detail what the output format or depth will be.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. The purpose verb is front-loaded and every word ('scope', 'supported input', 'safety boundary') carries meaning. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool with an output schema present, the description is essentially complete. An agent knows exactly what to expect: a description of QA scope, supported input, and safety boundary. The only minor gap is that the output schema exists but the description doesn't enumerate what it returns, though the output schema itself covers that.

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 tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters since none exist.

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 states a clear purpose: describe the CableCert QA service's scope, supported input, and safety boundary. The verb 'describe' plus the specific resource makes the tool's informational nature obvious. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings (audit_certification_package, inspect_certification_package), but those are clearly different action verbs (audit/inspect) vs. describe, so distinction is implicit.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The intended usage is implied: an agent would call this before other CableCert tools to understand the QA scope and safety boundary. Sibling alternatives are not mentioned, so the agent must infer the differentiation from their names alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it detects headers, capabilities, and row count, and 'preserves schema information', clarifying that parsing is non-mutating. It does not mention failure modes, but the safety profile is well covered by annotations.

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 three short sentences with no filler: purpose, input requirement, and behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only inspection tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the main invocation requirements and behavior. It is slightly incomplete only in not explaining when to choose this tool over the audit sibling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'Supply CSV text and a source filename', which largely restates the parameter names and does not explain expected CSV formatting, source_file's role, or that source_file is optional due to its default. Minimal semantic value is added.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('structured-cabling certification CSV export'), and what it does ('Detects known headers, capabilities and row count'). It clearly conveys the tool's task, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling audit_certification_package.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus audit_certification_package or cablecert_service_info. It implies an inspection-oriented use case from the name and title, but never states conditions, exclusions, or preferred ordering such as 'inspect before audit'.

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