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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool does (appends to audit log), what it doesn't do ('does not mint, verify, or revoke credentials'), and the return type ('Returns a confirmation object'). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions that would be helpful for a mutation 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 perfectly concise with three focused sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the tool's function, providing usage guidelines, and clarifying behavioral boundaries. No wasted words, and the most important information appears first.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the purpose, usage context, and behavioral boundaries. However, it could provide more detail about the confirmation object format or error handling. The 100% schema coverage helps compensate for some of these 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 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 ('Append an agent lifecycle event') and target resource ('Attest audit log'), with explicit enumeration of event types ('started, completed, or failed'). It distinguishes from sibling 'report_action' by contrasting lifecycle events vs. concrete tool outcomes, providing clear 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 ('to mark step boundaries or overall task progress') and when to use an alternative ('use report_action for concrete tool outcomes instead'). This directly addresses the sibling relationship and gives clear context for tool selection.

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