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 what the tool does (appends to an audit log), its purpose (recording side effects), and what it returns (a small confirmation object). It could improve by mentioning potential rate limits or error conditions, but covers core behavior well.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and usage context, while the second clarifies the return value and differentiation from report_status. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, audit logging function) and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good context about purpose, usage, and differentiation from siblings. It could slightly improve by mentioning what the 'small confirmation object' contains, but overall provides sufficient guidance for an agent to use it 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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since the schema coverage is complete. This meets the baseline expectation 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Append a tool execution outcome') and resource ('Attest audit log for the credential in use'), distinguishing it from siblings like report_status which handles lifecycle transitions. It explicitly defines the scope as recording side effects of meaningful business actions rather than authorizing them.

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 ('after a meaningful business action such as sending email, updating billing, or calling an internal API') and when not to use it ('callers should use report_status for lifecycle transitions like started or completed'), clearly differentiating it from the sibling tool report_status.

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