sign_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the JWT requirement and the default sign_key_id, which is helpful. But it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or the result of signing (e.g., what occurs on the build), leaving behavioral impact ambiguous.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, then prerequisites, then parameter details. No wasted words, though parameter explanation is a bit repetitive (mentions get_sign_keys twice). Still, structure is effective.

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 simple mutation tool with an output schema (indicated by context), the description covers essentials: purpose, auth requirement, default parameter, and a reference to a supporting tool. It does not explain the signing semantics in depth, but given the output schema exists and the tools are targeted, this is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must define parameters. It explains build_id as 'the build ID to sign' and sign_key_id with its default and a pointer to get_sign_keys, adding meaning beyond the schema titles. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource ('Sign a build on ALBS') and mentions the JWT token requirement. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_sign_task_status or create_build, but 'sign' is a distinct action understood without opening other schemas.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites (JWT token required) and directs the agent to get_sign_keys for available key IDs, which is useful context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or how it fits with sibling actions like create_build or commit_release, so it falls short of full guidance.

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