List recent attestation claims

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds useful context beyond annotations: 'This tool does not issue new claims', 'Auth: gate', and the TRACE-style provenance detail. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary function, and each sentence serves a distinct purpose: functionality, use case, exclusion/alternative, read-only clarification, and parameter semantics. No wasted words.

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 single parameter with full schema documentation, rich annotations covering safety/idempotence, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to use it, what not to use it for, auth requirements, and parameter behavior. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100% and the schema already fully documents 'limit' including its maximum-count semantics, ordering, and default. The description simply repeats 'limit is max claims, newest first (default 10)' without adding new information, so it stays at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('recent attestation claims issued by this kernel'), and even characterizes the claim structure (TRACE-style provenance: tool, allow/deny, risk tier, evidence mode). It explicitly separates this tool from audit_recent, so the agent can distinguish them.

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 provides an explicit positive use case ('Use to verify a prior sandbox/TEE decision') and an explicit negative case with a named alternative ('Do not use for the policy/audit trail — that is audit_recent'). This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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