attested_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it names the verification source (Sigstore attestation accepted by `gh attestation verify`), the policy binding (same run, ref, and head policy as the required check), and discloses that some receipt fields are merely local and 'labelled unverified'. What is missing is failure behavior — what a verdict looks like when no attestation exists — which is material for a verification 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the sourcing constraint before the local/CI exclusion. It is dense with domain jargon but no sentence is wasted; a short parenthetical gloss on 'signed verdict' would have cost nothing and helped.

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 six-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free verification tool, the description covers provenance and trust boundaries well but never indicates the shape of the returned verdict or what happens on verification failure. Since there is no output schema, the description is the only place a caller could learn what a successful or failed verdict contains, and it is silent there.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented with its default, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds a little by explaining that run, ref, and head are bound to the same policy as the required check, giving rationale for those three parameters, but it adds nothing for cwd, repo, or signer_workflow beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource: return the signed verdict for the project's attested/ctrf.json, sourced from Sigstore attestation. An agent can tell what comes back at a high level, but the description never distinguishes this from the sibling tools attested_run and attested_packet, so its scope boundary must be guessed.

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?

Usage is only implied through the trust model: 'Local runs are never attested; CI runs are' tells the agent this is meaningful only for CI-produced receipts, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus attested_run or attested_packet, and no note on prerequisites such as network or GitHub authentication.

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