certification_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Explain' signals a purely informational, non-mutating call, and the sentence specifies exactly which content will be delivered (five dimensions, grade scale, veto rule). It does not explicitly state that nothing is modified or describe the response shape, but for a zero-parameter explainer tool this is largely sufficient.

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 17-word sentence front-loads the key verb and resource, then packs the content scope into a compact list. There is no filler, tautology, or repetition — every word contributes information an agent needs.

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's low complexity — zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema — the description names the full content scope (five dimensions, grade scale, veto rule), which is what an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it. The only omission is the return format, which is a minor gap for a purely explanatory tool that will predictably return a textual explanation.

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 takes zero parameters, and the rubric sets a baseline of 4 for that case. The empty input schema already exhaustively conveys the parameter surface, so there is nothing further the description needs to add about parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Explain', bound to a concrete resource, 'the dsh-plugin-certification spec v1', and enumerates the exact scope: 'the five dimensions, the grade scale and the veto rule'. This naturally distinguishes it from the siblings get_certification and list_certified, which connote retrieving certification data rather than explaining the spec itself.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The appropriate context (an agent wanting to understand the spec's evaluation model before or instead of querying actual certifications) is only implied by the verb 'explain', leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name and sibling names.

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