get_judges

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

No annotations are provided, but the description accurately conveys a read-only listing operation with no side effects. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a 0-parameter tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word adds value.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what is returned (list of judges with expertise and evaluation criteria). However, it lacks details on the response structure or any limits, but for a simple list tool, this is sufficient.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description reinforces that no parameters are required.

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 action ('List all available judges'), the specific resource ('Agent Tribunal panel'), and what information is included ('areas of expertise and what they evaluate'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are all about evaluation actions, not listing judges.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to see available judges), but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Siblings like 'evaluate_code' and 'evaluate_batch' serve different purposes, but no direct comparison is provided.

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