sign_incident_response_attestation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it generates a signed attestation and captures specific data, but does not disclose authentication needs, potential side effects, error behaviors, or whether it requires special permissions. The mention of 'Pro+' hints at licensing but is vague.

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 plus a bullet-style list, concise and to the point. It avoids unnecessary detail, but could benefit from slightly better structure to separate what it does from what it captures.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers high-level purpose and output but fails to explain parameter semantics, usage context, or how it fits with siblings, leaving significant gaps.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameter. This leaves the meaning of each parameter entirely unclear, forcing agents to guess.

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 generates a signed attestation for incident response, specifying it captures regimes notified, SLAs, and response score. This distinguishes it from classification (classify_incident) and listing (list_regime_clocks), but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 use after incident response for compliance evidence, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like classify_incident or list_regime_clocks.

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