cmmn-get_acceptance_criteria

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It explains the return structure and backward compatibility but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature (implied by 'returns'), authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The mention of 'Phase 1 of case #1:4264' is irrelevant to behavioral context.

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 two sentences of useful content plus an irrelevant internal reference ('Phase 1 of case #1:4264'). The first two sentences are concise and informative; the third is unnecessary for an AI agent, reducing efficiency.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (id, text, verifier) and the verifier field's meaning. It covers backward compatibility but lacks details on error handling or conditions, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 describes the single parameter 'task_id' as 'Task ID (@rid format)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating 'for a task,' which does not improve understanding 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 'Returns the judge-layer acceptance criteria + required_evidence for a task.' This specifies a verb (returns) and a resource (acceptance criteria for a task), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'cmmn-set_acceptance_criteria' which would set criteria.

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 the tool is for retrieving criteria but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as 'cmmn-get_execution_flow' or 'cmmn-set_acceptance_criteria'. It lacks explicit when/when-not advice.

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