sswp_witness

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

The description details the tool's actions: scanning, running a pipeline, adversarial probing, producing an attestation, and auto-saving to a registry and audit ledger. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations (idempotent, not read-only, not destructive) and does not contradict them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and conveys all necessary details without excessive verbosity. It could be slightly more concise by breaking into bullet points, but overall it's efficient.

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 tool's complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the input, process, and output well. However, it does not specify what the tool returns to the agent (e.g., success message or attestation path), leaving a minor gap for an agent evaluating the output.

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?

The schema already describes the repoPath parameter well (100% coverage). The description adds context that the tool expects a directory with node_modules, which is useful but not critical. This slightly elevates the score above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly identifies the tool as the primary attestation tool for single repos, specifying that it produces a self-verifying .sswp.json attestation after scanning the full dependency graph and running a 5-gate pipeline. It distinguishes itself from the sibling sswp_bulk_witness by stating the single-repo scope.

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 explicitly says 'use it when you need a full cryptographic witness of a single repo's state' and 'For multiple repos, use sswp_bulk_witness instead,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a specific alternative.

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