get_judge_rubric_explainer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that numeric weights and scoring internals are intentionally not exposed and that no input is needed. This provides useful behavioral context not visible elsewhere.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first explains what the guide covers, the second clarifies limitations and input requirements. No fluff.

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 no-input, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It specifies the covered dimensions, the feedback-reading aspect, and the deliberate exclusion of scoring internals.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating 'No input needed,' eliminating any ambiguity. No additional parameter detail is required.

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 provides a plain-language guide to the four scoring dimensions and how to read judge feedback. It is specific about content, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_judge_philosophy.

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?

It mentions 'No input needed,' giving a usage prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_judge_philosophy, get_contest_rules). Usage context is implied by the description's content, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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