attest_path

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

Discloses side effect: writes verdict to attestations.jsonl when workspace_root provided. Mentions reading on-disk content and running checks. Lacks details on error handling, permissions, or performance, but given no annotations, the description adequately discloses key behaviors.

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 sentences: first defines action, second gives usage and side effect. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and well-structured.

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 and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral trait (writing audit log). Does not specify return value format but provides enough context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds value for workspace_root (explaining it enables Ring R2 detection and audit log) beyond schema. For path, description repeats absolute nature but is clear. Overall adds significant meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool performs post-write attestation, reading file content and running specific checks (Ring 0 syntax, Ring 0.7 security, optional Ring R2 cycle). Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'post-write' and 'pre-write gate', contrasting with validate_change tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: from PostToolUse hooks, CI, or after any write bypassing the pre-write gate. Does not explicitly list alternatives but implies distinction from pre-write validation. Provides context for optional workspace_root enabling Ring R2 detection.

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