issue_passport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that the server silently captures Tier 0 observed signals, computes a passport grade (0-3), and produces keys/signed passport/attestation summary. It also notes the lack of npm install, implying a server-side operation. It could mention persistence or auth requirements but still provides substantive behavioral context.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main verb and object, followed by behavioral details and usage guidance. Every clause adds meaningful information without redundancy or padding.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the key outputs (keys, signed passport, attestation summary, grade) and provides usage context. It also gives enough indication of the tool's role within the larger system (onboarding). It could elaborate on side effects or prerequisites, but for a straightforward issuance tool with well-schematized parameters, the description is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for all 5 fields. The description adds minimal parameter meaning—only loosely referencing 'optional values floor' which maps to attest_to_floor. Since the schema already documents all parameters, the description's added value is marginal, consistent with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Issue') and a clear resource ('complete agent passport'), listing concrete components (keys, signed passport, attestation summary, optional values floor). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'in a single call' and 'onboard any agent,' which sets it apart from query/verification tools like get_passport_grade or generate_keys.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to onboard any agent — no npm install required.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for partial steps (e.g., generate_keys), missing full exclusion/alternative guidance.

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