qm_attest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the token is HMAC-signed with a production secret, that the check covers shape only and not correctness, that the operation is free and anonymous, and that verification must be done via qm_attest_verify. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a low-risk mint 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 longer than average but each sentence contributes: purpose, limitations, signing/verification behavior, cost/anonymity, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses the example effectively at the end. Some phrasing like 'portable sanity attestation' is mildly jargon-heavy, but the structure is otherwise 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by stating the four returned fields: agent_id, at, token, and checks, and by explaining how to use them with qm_attest_verify. Input parameters are fully covered by the schema with 100% coverage. The only minor gap is that fields like 'at' are not explicitly explained, but the example and verification instruction make the tool callable correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; both agent_id and statement are already documented. The description adds a concrete example pairing values with the expected outputs, but it does not add much semantic detail beyond the schema. A 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation weight.

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 and resource: 'Mint a portable sanity attestation: a signed token binding an agent_id to a statement's sanity-check results.' It also clarifies the tool's scope by distinguishing shape-screening from truth-verification, and the sibling qm_attest_verify is naturally positioned as the counterpart for verification. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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: it says to hand the returned fields to qm_attest_verify to confirm the signature, and warns never to treat the token itself as proof. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool versus other siblings like qm_clinic_checkup, but the verify/attest pairing makes the primary workflow clear.

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