attest-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'does not change state' (indicating read-only behavior) and returns 'raw Attest audit events', which adds context about output format. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and behavioral notes in two efficient sentences. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy.

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's complexity (fetching audit data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, and read-only behavior. However, it doesn't detail the structure of returned 'raw Attest audit events', which could be important for an agent to interpret results, leaving a minor gap.

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 schema already documents the single parameter task_id. The description adds minimal value by implying task_id is needed for fetching the audit trail, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'fetch' and the resource 'full audit event chain for a single task tree', distinguishing it from siblings like list_tasks (which discovers tasks) and other tools that perform actions like issue_credential or revoke_credential. It specifies the scope as detailed chronology for specific events.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know the task_id' and 'use list_tasks first if you need to discover candidate tasks'. This clearly defines when to use this tool versus the alternative (list_tasks) and sets prerequisites.

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