Certify a subject (parcel/portfolio) with a module -> a certificate. Errors if the module's backing theorem is not gate-passed (BLOCKED).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputs | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| module_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait: the tool errors if the module's backing theorem is not gate-passed. However, it does not mention idempotency, side effects, or cost. The disclosure is minimal but provides a key constraint.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and error condition. It is concise and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.
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 3 required parameters, a nested inputs object, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output or the structure of the inputs object. The agent would need to guess or consult other sources.
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 0%, so description must compensate. The description only adds minimal context for 'subject' (parcel/portfolio). Inputs and module_id are unexplained. The nested inputs object is not described, leaving the agent without guidance on structure.
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 verb 'Certify', the resource (subject), and the outcome (certificate). It also specifies an error condition (blocked if theorem not gate-passed), which helps differentiate from sibling tools like viridis_certify_envelope.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to related tools like viridis_certify_envelope or viridis_verify_mark.
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 targets a distinct operation: attestation, identity binding, certification (with and without envelope), toll computation, module listing, and verification. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow the 'viridis_<verb>_<noun>' or 'viridis_<verb>' pattern, consistently using lowercase with underscores. The naming convention is uniform and predictable.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a specialized identity and certification server. It covers core operations without being overly sparse or overly numerous.
The tools cover core lifecycle: attest, bind, certify, compute, list, and verify. Minor gaps like revocation or removal of certifications exist but may be intentional for this domain.