attestation_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: structural validation, reporting signature length, and surfacing fields. However, it does not state whether it is read-only, what errors occur if validation fails, or any authorization requirements. The behavior is largely transparent but could be more explicit.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action (pretty-print with structural validation) and then lists key outputs. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple inspect tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, validation details, and surfaced fields. It could mention error handling or read-only nature, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% (no param description in schema). The description adds value by naming the parameter as 'attestation envelope' and specifying that it surfaces 'key_url + signed_at' fields, implying the object's structure. However, it does not detail the expected internal fields or validation requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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 (pretty-print, validate) and resource (Attestation envelope). It specifies three concrete outputs: confirming required fields, reporting signature byte-length, and surfacing key_url/signed_at. This differentiates it from sibling inspect tools for other envelope types like prompt_provenance_inspect or disclosure_inspect.

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 for inspecting and validating an attestation envelope, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent familiar with the domain to select it appropriately.

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