list-attestations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the reliance on event logs and the need for a custom RPC, but does not address pagination, rate limits, or what happens if no attestations are found. The limit parameter implies some pagination support, but it is not described.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and context, the second highlights the essential requirement. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the input constraints well but does not describe the return format (e.g., array of attestation objects, fields, or pagination). Given the absence of an output schema, more detail on the response would improve completeness.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description reinforces the critical rpcUrl requirement. While the schema already covers parameter meaning, the description adds practical context (why rpcUrl is necessary), which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 tool lists attestations on Rootstock via EAS event logs. It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (attestations), and the context of Rootstock and EAS distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue-attestation or verify-attestation.

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 notes that a custom rpcUrl is required because RSK public nodes lack eth_getLogs support. This guides when to use the tool, though it could be slightly more explicit about when not to use it beyond the public node limitation.

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