dry_run_attest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that nothing is written to the ledger, that the return value includes the same mapped_controls list as `attest`, and that record_id will be the nil UUID to signal no DB write. This is rich behavioral context beyond the basic 'dry run' idea.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose sentence, a numbered workflow, and a clear return-value explanation. Every sentence adds value: the nil UUID clarification and the 'Do NOT skip' warning are both practically useful. It is not overly 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?

The description fully covers the tool's role in the compliance loop, its output shape, and the safety implications. It even explains how to interpret the nil UUID and why the step should not be skipped. For a tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, this is very complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by noting that `payload` uses the 'same schema as `attest`', clarifying that `identity` is the user or service identity that would be recorded, and explaining that the returned nil UUID is a signal of no write. This goes slightly beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Preview which compliance controls a proposed evidence record would earn — without writing anything to the ledger.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling `attest` by saying 'Use this before calling attest' and explicitly frames it as a dry-run verification step.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this before calling `attest` to confirm the record is correct.' It also provides a numbered step sequence (get_posture → dry_run_attest → human approval → attest) and a strong exclusion: 'Do NOT skip this step when proposing records on behalf of a human.' This gives clear context and alternatives.

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