get_certification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a return/read operation and discloses the kind of data returned, which is adequate. However, it does not mention behavior when the repository/certification record is missing, whether live data is fetched from GitHub, or any response-shape details.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical packs useful output context without bloating the text.

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 get-by-owner/repo tool, the description covers the key context: what resource is returned and the main output dimensions. No output schema exists, so the parenthetical helps compensate, though a fuller description of the response structure or behavior when not found would make it complete.

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 100%, so the parameters owner and repo are already fully documented by the schema. The description adds context about the record type but does not explain the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Return') and a specific resource ('dsh-plugin-certification record'), scoped to one repository, with a useful parenthetical of the returned content (grade, snapshot date, five-dimension evidence). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but 'for one repository' clearly signals singular retrieval versus list_certified.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over list_certified or certification_spec. The phrase 'for one repository' implies a singular lookup, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided.

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