Sift ASN.1 Definition Candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It states a read-only ranking operation, which is non-destructive, but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or performance implications. The behavior is adequately described for a read-only tool.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero extraneous information.

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?

Despite having 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is very brief. It does not explain the ranking mechanism, output format, or how to interpret results. However, the parameter descriptions in the schema are thorough, partly compensating for the lack of narrative context. Overall, it is minimally complete but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 77%, meaning most parameters have descriptions. The tool's description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. At high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Rank), the resource (ASN.1 definition candidates), and the scope (using custom definitions or built-in PKI corpus). This distinguishes it from the similar sibling tool sift_pki_asn1_definition_candidates, which likely focuses solely on the PKI corpus.

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 with custom or built-in corpora but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like sift_pki_asn1_definition_candidates. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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