attach_evidence

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

The description discloses that it writes a file under .agentpack/evidence/ and adds a ledger event, which is useful context beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, whether directories are created, or failure modes. Annotations already cover core traits, so the description adds moderate value.

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?

Three sentences pack purpose, usage guidance, and parameter interplay without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the primary function and returns an id. Slightly long but every clause 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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to provide evidence (inline or file), and what the id is used for. With no output schema, it doesn't over-explain return values. It could mention that the ledger event is also a record, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds key semantics: 'content is ignored when path is set' and 'kind json stores the file with a .json extension' and that command/exitCode are stored as metadata. This goes beyond the schema descriptions and clarifies parameter relationships.

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 states a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('verification output as a file under .agentpack/evidence/ plus a ledger event'), and it explains the returned evidence id's purpose for reference from other tools. This clearly distinguishes attach_evidence from siblings like record_decision and task_update_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?

It explicitly says to call for meaningful verification worth preserving and provides aggregation guidance ('for small tasks prefer one aggregated evidence item over many per-command items'). It also explains the two input modes (inline content vs. path). It does not name alternative tools when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough.

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