ln_trust_attest

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses creating a NIP-85 attestation and pushing to Nostr relays, and describes the return value. However, it omits details on idempotency, rate limits, permission requirements, or potential failure modes for the relay push.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief main statement followed by clear parameter and return value sections. No unnecessary words, and all information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple publish tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameters, and return value. It lacks error examples or prerequisites, but given the low complexity, it is mostly complete.

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 fully explains each parameter: vendor (name or domain), score (0.0-1.0 with auto-calculation logic), and basis (reason with default). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/default information.

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 publishes a trust attestation for a vendor, creates a NIP-85 Trusted Assertion, and pushes it to Nostr relays. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ln_agent_attest and ln_vendor_trust by focusing on vendor trust attestation with community reputation building.

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 implies usage context: when you want to publish a vendor trust attestation for community reputation. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like ln_agent_attest, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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