attested_packet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the on-disk source path and, critically, warns that the contents are untrusted output of the code under test that anyone with write access could commit – an explicit prompt-injection caution. It does not say whether the call is read-only in effect or how it behaves when no packet is present.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource and the safety caveat front-loaded; every clause earns its place. The parenthetical path and the trust warning are dense but readable.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool the description covers source, origin, and trust level of the returned data. The remaining gap is the empty/error case when no red run exists, which an agent might need before calling.

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?

One optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage already documenting the default and meaning of `cwd`. The description adds nothing about `cwd`, but this is the expected outcome when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource – 'Return the failure packet' – and pins the source to 'the last red `attested run` (attested/packet.json)'. That is enough to separate it from attested_run, but it never explicitly contrasts with attested_status, so the sibling distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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 precondition (a prior red `attested run`) is implied by 'from the last red attendant run', which tells an agent when this applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what happens when no failure packet exists, and no routing to attested_status as the alternative.

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