agent_certificates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the certificate kinds and their PIN requirements (token, cloud, software), adding behavioral context about the data. While it doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only operation, the listing nature and field enumeration strongly imply that, so it's adequate.

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 purpose and key fields, and includes essential details about kind semantics without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fully describes what the tool returns (fields and meanings) and how to use the result (id for signing). This is complete for a simple list tool.

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, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details (there are none), but it does describe the return structure, which is beyond schema. The baseline 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 tool provides a list of qualified certificates available to the local Storno Agent, enumerating the returned fields (id, subject, issuer, expiry, kind). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that the id is required by agent_sign_pdf and submission tools, making its role clear.

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 tells when to use this tool: before signing, since the certificate id is needed by agent_sign_pdf and the submission tools. This provides direct context on its role as a prerequisite, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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