ARGENTUM

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'Your karma weight counts toward verification,' providing key behavioral context about the karma system, but omits side effects (karma consumption, reversibility), auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 with a clear prose explanation followed by parameter documentation. No sentences are wasted, though the parameter list format is slightly informal.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description adequately documents the parameters and basic purpose. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks sufficient behavioral depth (what happens to the attested action, karma implications) despite having an output schema.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It successfully documents all 4 parameters (action_id, attester_id, attester_name, note) with clear semantic meanings, though it lacks format constraints or validation rules.

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 defines the action as attesting/verifying 'someone else's action' and mentions the karma weight mechanism, distinguishing it from submit_action (which creates actions) and the read-only siblings (get_* tools).

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 phrase 'someone else's action' implicitly signals this is for verifying others' work rather than submitting your own, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to submit_action. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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