attest-verification

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions default testnet schema UIDs but omits critical details like whether the operation is read-only or destructive, permission requirements, side effects, or error handling. The description is insufficient for understanding 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?

The description is short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action, but given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no annotations), it is under-specified. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential details.

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 is severely incomplete for a tool with 15 parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain the overall workflow, expected return values, error scenarios, or step-by-step usage. The tool is complex, yet the description provides almost no contextual guidance.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only noting default schema UIDs. It does not explain parameter relationships (e.g., walletData and walletPassword dependency) or provide usage hints for complex parameters.

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 it creates a contract verification attestation on Rootstock using RAS, specifying the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling attestation tools like attest-deployment or attest-transfer, though the name and description imply the specific use case.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., issue-attestation or verify-attestation). There is no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or conditions under which this tool should be avoided.

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