viridisos__viridis_certify

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes the staging/non-authoritative status and a blocked error, but fails to mention side effects, authentication needs, or data persistence. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 contains verbose jargon (e.g., 'gate-passed canon theorem', 'bind did:viridis identities', 'K3 swap') that obscures the core functionality. The second sentence is clear, but the first part is overly complex and less helpful.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description should cover parameter details and return structure. It mentions the output is a certificate but provides no format or content specification. Incomplete for effective use.

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%. The description does not explain the purpose or format of any of the three required parameters (inputs, subject, module_id). It adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the tool certifies a subject (parcel/portfolio) using a module to produce a certificate. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like viridis_certify_envelope or viridis_verify_mark.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an error condition (module's theorem not gate-passed) but lacks explicit when-to-use or not-to-use context.

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