attest-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a read operation, returns task summaries only, does not mutate task state, and operates on the authenticated organization. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or error handling, which would be helpful for a list 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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidelines, and the third clarifies behavioral aspects. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clarifying the read-only nature and return type. However, it could be more complete by mentioning typical response structure or any limitations (e.g., maximum limit values, default sorting). The absence of an output schema increases the need for return value description.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions the optional filters (user, agent, status, limit) but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('Attest task trees for the authenticated organization'), specifies the scope ('recent'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning when to use it versus get_audit_trail or get_evidence. This provides a specific purpose that differentiates it from alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to recover recent workflows when you do not already know the task ID') and when to use alternatives ('use get_audit_trail or get_evidence once you have a specific task_id'). This provides clear, actionable guidance for tool selection.

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