ln_agent_attest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a write operation ('store') but fails to disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or side effects. Such gaps hinder safe agent decision-making.

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 well-structured docstring with a one-line summary, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose) appears first. No extraneous content.

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?

Given no output schema, the description states 'Returns: The stored attestation record,' which is minimal. It lacks details on return format, error conditions, or pagination. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is adequate but incomplete; more output context would improve usability.

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 the description's Args section is essential. It provides meaningful details: agent_pubkey format (64 hex chars), owner_id type (email, company name), jurisdiction examples, compliance_level enumerated values, and source examples. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Store an attestation about an agent's identity and compliance status.' It uses a specific verb ('store') and resource ('attestation'), and distinguishes from siblings such as ln_agent_verify (likely verification) and ln_trust_attest (different trust context).

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 mentions 'Used for Know Your Agent (KYA)' and lists use cases (self-attesting, operator, third-party). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, such as ln_trust_attest for other attestation types. Usage context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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