get_sign_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the authentication requirement (JWT token) and the read-only nature of the operation ('Get', 'Returns'), and clarifies that keyid is a short GPG fingerprint. For a simple lookup tool this covers the key behavioral ground; minor gaps remain (error behavior with invalid JWT, pagination), but none are critical for a zero-parameter listing.

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 three short sentences with no filler — purpose and auth prerequisite are front-loaded, followed by the return-field breakdown. It is efficient and every line earns its place, given there is no output schema content shown here to rely on.

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 zero-parameter lookup tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, source (ALBS), auth prerequisite, return fields with semantic clarification, and workflow linkage (needed for sign_build). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain — the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead usefully explains what the operation returns, which contains the keyid semantics (GPG fingerprint short) that the output schema alone might not make clear.

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 specific verb, resource, and source ('Get available sign keys from ALBS'), and enumerates the returned fields (key ID, name, keyid/GPG fingerprint, platform IDs). The tool is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_sign_task_status (task status) and get_platforms — none of the other get_* tools retrieve signing keys.

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 names a prerequisite (JWT token) and gives workflow context: the returned keys and platform IDs are 'needed for sign_build', so an agent understands this is a prerequisite step before signing. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the sign_build tie-in provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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