score_verifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It does specify the output (detection, precision, atlas_score, and forgeries that got through), which is useful. But it does not disclose side effects, execution behavior, permissions, or prerequisites, leaving the transparency incomplete for a tool that likely executes a command.

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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first states the action and target, the second lists the return values. No fluff or redundancy; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it conveys the purpose, the input (implicitly via 'verifier command' and 'atlas'), and the exact output metrics. It only lacks explicit parameter enumeration and usage scenarios, which are minor gaps.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters: 'command' is described as argv with {path} placeholder, while 'atlas_dir' has no description. The tool description contextually links atlas_dir to the certificate failure atlas but does not explicitly explain its format or role. It adds some context but does not fully compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 the specific verb 'Score' against a concrete resource (the certificate failure atlas), and explicitly lists the calculated metrics (detection, precision, atlas_score). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling verification/explanation tools by indicating an evaluation/benchmarking purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Score a verifier command against the certificate failure atlas', which suggests using this when evaluating a verifier. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like verify_certificate or check_drat, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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