attest_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one important trait—'The capability is never persisted'—but does not explain side effects, whether the attestation record is stored, what permissions are needed, or any failure modes. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation with no annotation support.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the key non-persistence trait is stated immediately afterward. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool still lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral side-effect information. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, this definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it reliably.

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 must compensate, but it only vaguely references the capability concept and persistence. It gives some context for capability_token and authority, but says nothing about evidence_id or attested_by, leaving most parameter semantics unexplained.

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 states a clear action ('Attest evidence') and a specific resource, and adds a mechanism ('runtime verifier/owner capability'). It is not a tautology and is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling evidence-related tools like submit_evidence or verify_slice.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_evidence, verify_slice, or evidence_freshness. The description implies attestation is a distinct operation, but it never states conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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