get_image_attestations

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It only states it 'gets' attestations, implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or whether it modifies state. No indication of return format or side effects.

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 short and to the point, but it omits crucial details. Conciseness is acceptable, but the lack of structure (no front-loading of key info) and missing parameter explanations reduce effectiveness.

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 complexity of sibling tools (e.g., inspect_image, get_image_vulnerabilities) and no output schema, the description fails to differentiate this tool's purpose or specify return type. It is incomplete for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool.

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?

All three parameters (name, env_id, agent_token) have no descriptions. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no information about parameter meaning, constraints, or defaults.

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 'Get attestations for an image.' clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (attestations for an image), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_image_history or get_image_vulnerabilities. However, it lacks specificity about what attestations are or how they are used.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_image or search_images. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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