human_attestation_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first'), read-only nature, and filterable fields. However, it omits details like result format, pagination behavior, the role of the required app_id, and potential auth requirements, leaving an agent with gaps in understanding the full 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 a single sentence, tightly packed with the verb, resource, ordering, filters, and a safety cue. It wastes no words and front-loads the core action, making it exceptionally concise and easy to parse.

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 5 parameters with 1 required (app_id) and no output schema. The description omits any explanation of app_id and limit, and does not describe the return format. The term 'durable' is undefined. These operational gaps make the description insufficient for correct invocation, despite a clear purpose.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains three filter parameters (subject_id, subject_type, status) as optional filters but does not mention the required app_id or the limit parameter. The description lacks clarity on filter match semantics and default limit behavior.

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's purpose: 'List durable attestation records (newest first)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling human_attestation_create and other list tools by focusing on attestations, and the 'Read-only' note further clarifies it is a retrieval operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when needing to list attestation records, with optional filters, and explicitly notes it is read-only. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, though sibling human_attestation_create implies the contrast.

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