list_attestations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses 'Read-only; no side effects' and details the return content: 'chronological record of attestation events... each with its actor, timestamp, and status/expiry as recorded.' It also explains the operational consequence ('An assumption only mitigates its control objectives while it is active AND currently attested'), which is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple list.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, a substantive second sentence about return content and usage, and a final sentence pointing to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 is strong for a listing tool: it explains what is returned, why you'd use it, and which alternatives to use. The presence of an output schema covers exact return structure. The only notable gap is the undocumented server_version parameter, which might confuse invocation. Overall, it is near-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?

Schema description coverage is only 67% (server_version is undocumented in the schema), and the description adds no parameter-level detail. It does not mention server_version at all, nor does it explain what assumption_id/model_id mean beyond the schema. Thus the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List an assumption's attestation history.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Read-only; no side effects' and by explicitly contrasting with submit_attestation and get_assumption. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use this to diagnose coverage that depends on an attestation.' It also names alternatives: 'To record a new attestation use submit_attestation; for the assumption's current fields (status, description) use get_assumption.' This fully addresses usage context and exclusions.

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