aps_project_attribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains that the projection includes a Merkle path for verification, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or error handling. Moderate transparency.

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 concise with two sentences and a listing of axis values. Front-loaded with core purpose, but the axis listing is redundant with the schema. Slightly redundant but efficient overall.

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 no output schema, the description explains the output's content (axis content plus two-hop Merkle path). It covers the main use case but lacks details on prerequisites or failure modes. Fairly complete for a simple extraction tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema for parameters, only repeating the axis enum. The overall operation context is provided but not parameter-specific semantics.

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 states the verb 'extract' and the resource 'single-axis projection from an AttributionPrimitive'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like aps_construct_attribution_primitive (which constructs) and aps_verify_attribution_projection (which verifies the projection).

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 when a projection is needed from an AttributionPrimitive, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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