verify_ledger_attestation

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

The description fully discloses that the tool is read-only (consistent with annotations), explains the intended cryptographic flow, and explicitly states the current behavior is 'not-implemented' with a rationale. No contradictions 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 verbose, including issue numbers and detailed engineering context. While informative, it could be more concise for an AI agent. The structure is logical but contains redundant technical details.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, intended behavior, current limitations, and relation to sibling tools. It fully explains why the tool exists despite being unimplemented.

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 adds no parameter semantics, but this is acceptable since no parameters exist. Baseline for zero-param tools 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 tool verifies Ledger device attestation by issuing a nonce and checking a signature. It explicitly distinguishes intended vs current behavior and references sibling tools like verify_ledger_firmware, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains that the tool is intended for secure element attestation but currently returns 'not-implemented'. It lists sibling defenses that cover the threat surface, providing alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others.

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