mutualAuthBuildCertificate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the issuer's private key signs the certificate and returns a signed object, and mentions the canonical (JCS) form. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the behavior is generally transparent for a build operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and to the point.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return type. It could elaborate on how the certificate fits into a handshake, but it is adequately complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only context about the signing key's role, which is already partially implied by the schema. This gives a baseline score of 3.

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 'Build and sign a mutual-auth certificate' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it well from sibling tools like mutualAuthDeriveSession and mutualAuthVerifyAttest, which handle different parts of the mutual auth flow.

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 the signing mechanism but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The context is implied but not directly stated.

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