Venice TEE Response Signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by stating that no authentication is required and that the tool returns only the provider payload without performing verification, which sets the caller's obligation. It stops short of describing failure behavior for non-TEE or incomplete requests.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the verification contract and the auth note. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, that verification is the caller's responsibility, and that no auth is needed. The one gap is the shape of the returned signature payload, which is not characterized at all.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry descriptions that explain provenance (model from chat completion metadata, request_id from venice_chat or venice_chat_with_character). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the enclave signature') scoped to 'a completed TEE text-model chat request,' which clearly separates it from the general chat and attestation siblings. It gestures at venice_tee_attestation without naming it, so the differentiation is clear in substance but not in explicit routing.

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?

Usage context is well established: the request must be a completed TEE text-model chat, and the signature must be verified against a signing identity from a separately verified attestation. There is no explicit 'do not use this if' clause and no named prerequisite tool call, which keeps it short of a 5.

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