replay_certificate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (integer arithmetic only, no solver) that goes beyond the schema. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like output format, side effects, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise rationale. No filler or redundant content is present.

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?

Even though the tool is simple, the description lacks essential context about what the tool returns (no output schema) and how it handles invalid certificates. Without this, an agent cannot know the expected result or verify success, making the description incomplete for invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does identify the certificate as an 'elimination certificate', giving it semantic meaning, but does not explain the structure or required fields of the object. This is minimal compensation for a single unstructured object 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 clearly states the action 'Re-check' and the resource 'elimination certificate', and specifies the method 'integer arithmetic only'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_constant_time' or 'find_leak', which target different verification aspects.

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 for verifying someone else's claim without trusting them or an SMT solver, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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