get_attestation

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that the signing key never leaves attested code, and that the attestation proves code matches published source. It does not contradict any annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states what is returned, second sentence explains significance and provides verification instructions. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no waste.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly states the contents (PCR0, PCR1, PCR2 measurements + signature), explains the trust chain, and provides a verification URL. For a parameterless tool, this is 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info but is not needed. It effectively describes what the returned document contains.

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 that the tool returns the AWS Nitro attestation document with specific PCR measurements and signature. It explains the purpose in the context of proving code integrity for signing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_order or place_order.

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 advises to use this tool before trusting place_order and provides a verification step using a URL. While it gives good context for when to use, it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, though none seem needed.

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