attestation_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only or destructive, any authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The term 'cMCP-style' is an unexplained jargon that obscures behavior.

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 extremely short (4 words), which is concise but at the cost of informativeness. The lack of detail makes it under-specified rather than efficient, earning a middling score.

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 the low complexity (1 optional parameter), the description is severely incomplete. An output schema exists but the description does not hint at what it returns. Sibling audit_recent suggests a temporal audit context, but without clarification, the agent cannot use this tool correctly.

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% and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The sole parameter 'limit' has a default of 10 but the description does not explain its purpose or acceptable range. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Recent TRACE claims (cMCP-style).' is vague and lacks a clear verb and resource. It does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., retrieve, list, fetch), and the term 'TRACE claims' is undefined, making it ambiguous against siblings like audit_recent which likely does something similar.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like audit_recent and various memory tools, there is no explanation of the specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions needed for correct selection.

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