create_cert

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavior: the tool creates two files from one input, one containing the private key and one containing the public certificate. It also emphasizes that all four required parameters must be provided. Missing details like overwrite behavior or return values, but the core behavioral traits are clearly communicated.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an IMPORTANT note about required parameters, followed by a clean bulleted breakdown of the two generated files. Every sentence serves an operational purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description compensates effectively. It explains the output artifacts, required inputs, and the typical AS2 integration use case. The only minor omission is potential conflict/overwrite behavior, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by re-emphasizing the four required parameters, advising a unique serial number (e.g., timestamp or random), and explaining how the filename parameter maps to two distinct output files. This goes beyond mere schema repetition.

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 clear verb+resource pair: 'Create a public/private certificate key pair.' It goes further by specifying the two output files (MyCert.pfx and MyCert.cer) and their uses, which distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like import_certificate and exchange_cert that handle existing certificates.

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?

Provides clear usage context by mapping the generated files to AS2 profile parameters (as2:signingkeypath, as2:privatekeypath, as2:publickeypath) and instructing that the .cer should be shared with trading partners. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' mark.

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