List certificates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description only adds the scope 'in your team', which is minor behavioral context. It does not mention pagination or return format, but the bar is lower given the annotations.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It effectively communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 list tool with good annotations and full schema documentation, the description provides sufficient context (team scope). It does not mention filter or limit capabilities, but these are documented in the schema. The absence of an output schema means the description need not explain return values. Slightly better than minimal given the scope clarification.

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% - every parameter has a description. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. This earns the baseline score of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a list of signing certificates in your team'. It clearly states the action and scope, and the naming 'list-certificates' distinguishes it from related tools like get-certificate and other list-* siblings. It fully conveys the tool's function.

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 usage (when you need certificates from your team) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as get-certificate (single cert) or list-profiles. No exclusions or alternative references are given, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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