attest_subject

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

With no annotations provided, the description only indicates that it generates and auto-loads an artifact. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, requires authorization, or has side effects beyond loading into the portal.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the core action and provides an important side effect (auto-loading) without unnecessary words.

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 has 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, the format of the sealed artifact, or how parameters like evidence_items and behavioral_baseline contribute to the attestation.

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 description does not mention any parameters, despite schema description coverage being only 25%. It fails to explain the purpose or usage of subject_content, subject_metadata, evidence_items, or behavioral_baseline, leaving a significant gap.

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 that the tool attests a subject and generates a sealed Policy Artifact, with auto-loading into a portal. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like generate_evidence_bundle or request_claim, which could have overlapping purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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