get_attestation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only 'fetch' but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior. The 'signed' descriptor is about data nature, not tool behavior.

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, with the first stating purpose and the second giving usage context. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the primary source of context. It covers purpose and usage but leaves gaps: the limit parameter is unexplained, and the return structure is only vaguely described as 'signed attestations.' The simplicity of the tool raises the score, but these omissions prevent a higher rating.

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 only 50% (artifact is documented, limit is not). The description does not mention the limit parameter at all, nor does it explain how it affects results. It adds context for the artifact via 'verdict' but fails to compensate for the undocumented limit.

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 'Fetch' and identifies a concrete resource ('signed attestations behind an artifact verdict'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like verify_artifact or search_artifacts. The phrase 'artifact verdict' provides domain context without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user asks for evidence, provenance detail, or wants to verify offline.' It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool over verification-oriented siblings.

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