kernel_attest_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; "Return" establishes a read-only retrieval and the second sentence explains the downstream verification purpose. It does not state whether the call requires authentication, what happens when attestation is disabled, or whether the identity is stable/persisted, so a zero-param tool is left with a few unanswered behavioral questions.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, followed by the reason it matters. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 zero-parameter identity getter with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned and why it is used, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around auth requirements and the disabled-attestation case, but no essential calling information is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and an empty object schema, so there is no parameter meaning to add; baseline 4 applies. The description usefully names one returned field (server_id), which is extra rather than required.

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?

Specific verb and resource: "Return this kernel's Ed25519 attestation identity (server_id)" plus the enabled-flag, which is a concrete, unambiguous purpose. It implicitly contrasts with verification siblings by noting the fingerprint is what clients pin and verify receipts against, but it never names a sibling or explicitly separates identity-fetch from receipt-verification.

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?

Usage is only implied: "Clients pin this fingerprint and verify every receipt against it" signals the trust-bootstrap scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when not to use it, and no reference to kernel_attest_verify or kernel_attest_verify_chain as alternatives.

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