attest_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that the tool records a local action, returns a signed yes/no attestation, and keeps PII on the host. It could add more about persistence or output format, but the provided privacy and signing behavior is valuable.

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 only two short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the privacy constraint in a separate clear sentence. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and privacy stance but does not fully explain the attestation's return structure or when to choose this over sibling tools. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall contract is only minimally complete.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all six parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only indirect context, such as 'yes-or-no' matching the outcome parameter and 'PII stays on the host' relating to context_hash and details_summary. This meets the baseline without adding substantial parameter-specific detail.

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 ('Record'), a resource ('a local action'), and an output ('a signed yes-or-no ACTION attestation'). This makes the core purpose clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with verify_action or gate_tool_call.

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 phrase 'PII stays on the host' implies a privacy-preserving use case, and 'Record a local action' suggests when this tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools verify_action or gate_tool_call.

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