compute-ledger__attest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'content-addressed attestation' and 'verifiable', but does not specify whether the tool creates a new record, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur. Behavioral transparency is insufficient.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with a domain tag in brackets. While concise, the brackets are somewhat unnecessary and could be removed, but overall it is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should still clarify the outcome (e.g., returns an attestation ID or proof), potential errors, and required context. It falls short by not explaining what the agent should expect after issuing an attestation.

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%, yet the description does not elaborate on the 'entry_id' parameter beyond the phrase 'for a ledger entry'. It fails to add meaning about the parameter format, constraints, or how to obtain it. The description does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 states the action ('Issue a content-addressed attestation'), the target resource ('ledger entry'), and the context ('verifiable green-compute / energy claim'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'verify_attestation'.

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 implies usage when attestation of a ledger entry is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'verify_attestation' or 'record_work'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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