verify_ledger_attestation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the current limitation (returns 'not-implemented' with explanation) and the reasons (missing APDU, CA, algorithm). No contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed but somewhat verbose, covering both intended and current behavior, sibling defenses, and future plans. It is front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY Secure Element attestation challenge', but could be more concise by separating the limitation from the core 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return format ('status: "not-implemented"' with structured explanation) and provides context about sibling tools and the research gap. This is complete for a tool in development.

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 has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it appropriately avoids adding unnecessary information. Baseline score for 0 params is 4.

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 intended behavior: issue a nonce APDU, receive attestation, verify against Ledger's root CA. However, it also notes the current implementation returns 'not-implemented'. The tool's purpose is well-defined but not fully operational, which reduces clarity slightly.

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 says the tool is READ-ONLY, lists sibling tools that cover the threat surface in the meantime (e.g., verify_ledger_firmware, verify_ledger_live_codesign), and explains that the cryptographic check is pending research. This provides clear guidance on when to use alternatives.

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