inspect_attested_computation

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

The description adds the strong behavioral guarantee 'never execute it' and clarifies the scope ('indexed inert artifacts'), which goes beyond the generic readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. This provides meaningful context about safety and side-effect absence.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It delivers the core purpose and key constraint efficiently.

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 well-documented schema and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a read-only inspection tool. However, with no output schema, it does not hint at the return format or shape of the result, which is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'asOf' or 'includeComputation' influence the inspection).

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 states a specific action ('statically inspect') on a specific resource ('Attested Computation contract and indexed inert artifacts'), and adds 'never execute it' to clarify non-execution. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'check_computation_receipt' or 'prepare_attested_computation', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 this tool is for inspection without execution, and the 'never execute it' phrase provides a clear when-not context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or define when to use them instead, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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