compute-ledger__attest

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'issue' implying creation, and 'content-addressed' hinting at immutability, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or whether entry_id must exist. The description is minimal for a creation tool with no annotations.

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 sentence with a prefix, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail for the tool's complexity. It fits the space but could be more informative without being verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should clarify return value or effects. It only states the purpose, omitting what the agent can expect after invocation (e.g., attestation identifier, confirmation). Incomplete for effective use.

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%, but the description only loosely refers to 'ledger entry' without explaining the entry_id parameter's format, origin, or constraints. For a single required parameter, this adds little beyond the schema.

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 'Issue' and resource 'content-addressed attestation for a ledger entry', with context about verifiable green-compute/energy claims. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_attestation (verification vs. issuance) and list_entries (listing vs. creating).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., trust__attest, verify_attestation). No prerequisites or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from context.

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