aps_project_attribution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds meaningful detail: it discloses that the projection contains axis content plus a two-hop Merkle path, and explains the cryptographic purpose. It does not fully describe the return format or error behavior, but this is a simple read-like operation.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core operation. The remainder adds essential behavioral details and the axis enum without unnecessary fluff.

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 complete for a straightforward extraction tool: it identifies inputs, output contents, and downstream use. There is no output schema, but the description adequately covers the key return aspects, though it could mention the exact return type or structure.

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%, and the description merely mirrors the schema by listing axis values and referring to aps_construct_attribution_primitive for the primitive parameter. No additional parameter semantics are added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and identifies the exact resource ('AttributionPrimitive'), making the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like aps_verify_attribution_projection by describing the projection's content and purpose.

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 implies usage by explaining that the projection is for downstream verification, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool is mentioned, unlike the get_calls exemplar.

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