enclave_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a verification operation but does not state that it is read-only, what permissions are required, what happens on a failed verification, or what the response looks like.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The density of technical terms makes it harder to parse, but there is no structural 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description should explain prerequisites, success/failure semantics, and at least the basic return contract. It does not, leaving an agent unable to predict the tool's behavior beyond a high-level 'verify' action.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It does not add unnecessary parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and names the evidence and four checks (pinned release hash, signer, OS account, execution model), so the action is identifiable. However, 'fresh running-worker evidence' is domain-specific jargon and the description does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as enclave_status, enclave_audit, or enclave_doctor.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling it replaces. An agent must infer from the name that this is an attestation/verification step rather than a status or audit call.

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