judge_dredd

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds valuable behavioral context that the schema cannot convey: the return payload is skill instructions plus caller-supplied prompt data, not a computed score. It still omits what the caller is expected to do with that payload.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the key negative clarification ('not a computed score') is front-loaded where an agent will read it.

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?

With 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition should explain each input and the expected follow-up workflow. It resolves the return-value question but leaves three of four parameters entirely undocumented, which is not enough for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description must carry the explanation and it largely does not. Only the vague phrase 'caller-supplied prompt data' hints at the inputs; priorities, fidelity_source, and earlier_scorecards are never mentioned or explained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Prepare') and resource ('Judge Dredd evaluation'), and adds the unusual clarification that it returns skill instructions plus prompt data rather than a score. That distinguishes it from a scoring/computation tool, but it does not differentiate it from any named sibling such as get_skill or prompt_pipeline.

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 word 'Prepare' and the phrase 'not a computed score' weakly imply this is a setup step rather than the evaluation itself, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the skill/pipeline siblings.

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