trust__verify_attestation

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions 'recomputing its hash', suggesting a read-like operation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether verification records anything. The burden falls entirely on the description, and it fails to cover behavioral traits adequately.

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 very short—one sentence plus a bracketed prefix. It is concise, though the bracketed part may be extraneous. The core function is conveyed quickly.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only two required string parameters, the description is minimal. It omits return format, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., attestation must exist), and how to construct parameter values. Not fully complete for the tool's simple operation.

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%. The description does not mention the parameters 'agent_id' or 'attestation_id' or provide any additional meaning beyond their names. It adds no value to 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 clearly states the verb 'verify', the resource 'previously issued attestation', and the method 'recomputing its hash'. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'trust__attest' and 'compute-ledger__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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies use for verifying attestations but lacks context for decision-making.

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