inspect_attested_computation

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context about inspecting 'indexed inert artifacts' and reinforces the non-execution guarantee, which is consistent with annotations and adds value beyond them.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and the key limitation ('never execute it'). No redundant phrases or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description clearly states the purpose and limitation, and the parameter schema is complete, but with no output schema it leaves the return format unspecified. For a read-only inspection tool, this is a minor gap, but the description could hint at what the agent will receive (e.g., static analysis details). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The description is tool-level and adds no extra meaning about individual parameters, matching the baseline for high 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 uses a specific verb ('statically inspect') and a specific resource ('Attested Computation contract and indexed inert artifacts'), and explicitly excludes execution ('never execute it'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like prepare_attested_computation and check_computation_receipt without needing to open their schemas.

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 clear context (static inspection, non-execution) and an explicit exclusion ('never execute it'), but it does not name alternative tools or specific conditions for when to choose this tool over others. The exclusion gives some when-not guidance, but there is no explicit reference to alternatives.

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