rush_attest_generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that a statement is generated. It does not reveal whether this modifies the artifact, writes a file, requires signing/key material, or returns provenance to stdout.

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 informative sentence with no filler, and the key term 'SLSA Level 3' is front-loaded. It is concise, though it sacrifices contextual detail.

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 tool with no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and a broad sibling list, the description omits enough guidance to be reliably used. The presence of an output schema helps the return-value side, but artifact path semantics and invocation prerequisites are still unexplained.

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 never mentions artifact_path or explains what path should be supplied. The schema only provides a title and default, so the description adds no meaning beyond structured fields.

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 names a specific action ('Generate') and a precise resource ('in-toto SLSA Level 3 provenance statement'), which is distinct from every sibling tool name in the list. An agent can immediately identify what this tool produces without needing to open the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool, what artifact it should be run on, or how it relates to alternatives such as rush_sbom or rush_license_matrix. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and parameter name.

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