rush_attest

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the output is an 'unsigned draft', which is useful, but it does not mention potential side effects such as building artifacts, network access, browser use, or file writes—concerns implied by the many 'allow_*' parameters. This lack of disclosure leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler or redundancy. The key information—what is generated and in what form—is front-loaded. It earns high marks for efficiency, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

This is a complex tool with 15 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a detailed but undocumented parameter set. The description does not cover prerequisites, side effects, parameter meaning, or even the difference from the sibling 'rush_attest_generate'. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on this definition.

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%, and the description offers no explanation of any of the 15 parameters. It does not help an agent understand the meaning or relationship of 'path', 'artifact_path', 'output_path', 'allow_*' flags, or 'trusted_roots'. Since the schema itself has no descriptions, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('in-toto Statement v1 SLSA provenance unsigned draft for build artifacts'). It names the exact output format and the 'unsigned draft' qualifier, which distinguishes it from a signed attestation. Though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'rush_attest_generate', the purpose is concrete and actionable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list, which is insufficient for correct tool selection.

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