attest-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'a signed JWT plus claims including the task tree ID,' which adds useful behavioral context about the output format. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or whether this is a write operation (though 'issue' implies creation). The description adds some value but leaves gaps for a credential-issuing tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third gives output and sibling guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity of a credential-issuing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the purpose, usage context, output format (JWT with claims), and sibling relationship. However, it lacks details on error handling, security implications, or what happens on failure, which would be helpful for completeness. The high schema coverage helps offset some gaps.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain scope format or TTL defaults). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic information.

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 specific action ('Issue a new root credential'), resource ('for a task'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'use delegate_credential for child agents instead of issuing multiple unrelated root credentials.' This provides a precise verb+resource combination with sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('at the start of a workflow when an orchestrator or top-level agent needs explicit scoped authority tied to a human user and instruction') and when not to use it ('use delegate_credential for child agents instead'). It names the alternative tool and specifies the context clearly.

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