get_judge_rubric_explainer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently states that 'numeric weights and scoring internals are intentionally not exposed,' setting expectations. It also confirms no input is needed, making the behavior fully predictable.

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?

Two sentences deliver complete information with no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important caveats. Highly efficient.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it does not cover. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no param info but doesn't need to. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 it provides a 'plain-language guide to the four scoring dimensions' and explains how to read judge feedback. It specifies the exact dimensions (originality, theme_alignment, execution, surprise) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the scoring rubric.

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 explicitly says 'No input needed,' implying it's a simple retrieval tool. It provides context for when to use it (to understand scoring) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_contest_rules or check_payout. However, the purpose is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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