attest_retention

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does provide meaningful behavior: it appends, it signs, and it derives the statement from the ledger rather than asserting it. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what 'signed' technically means, leaving notable gaps for a mutating tool.

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 and front-loaded with the action and object before detailing content. The final caveat 'Made from the ledger, not asserted' earns its place as an important behavioral qualifier, though the long middle clause is somewhat dense.

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?

The description explains what the statement contains but is not complete enough given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation. An agent cannot determine how the parameters are used, what the tool returns, or what side effects occur, so the definition leaves critical operational context 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not map policy_days, actor, or note to their roles. The phrase 'the policy in force' loosely relates to policy_days, and 'signed' implies actor, but note remains entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific action on a specific resource: append a signed retention statement to the action ledger. It also enumerates the exact content of the statement and adds a distinguishing trait, 'Made from the ledger, not asserted,' which separates it from a mere report or assertion tool.

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 its use: call it when you need to append a ledger-derived retention attestation. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives such as retention or compliance_report, so the agent must infer the decision boundary.

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