get_scale_attestation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'hash chain' but does not explain what that entails behaviorally (e.g., returns parent hashes, traversal?). No information about side effects, permissions, or idempotency, which is critical for a tool with no 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word serves a purpose.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description could be more complete. It does not specify the format of entity_id, what the response includes, or how the hash chain is structured. The tool has moderate complexity (3 params, enum) but the description leaves 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond restating that the record is for a scale and entity. It does not clarify the 'include_chain' parameter or tie it to the 'hash chain' mention in the description.

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 verb ('get'), resource ('attestation record'), and qualifiers ('with hash chain', 'for a specific scale and entity'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_anchor or get_constitution by focusing on attestation records, though it 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 when to use (when needing an attestation record for a scale+entity) but provides no explicit when-not, prerequisites, or alternative tools. Sibling tools exist (e.g., get_anchor) but no guidance on choosing.

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