_mcp_sign_document

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states the operation type (signing), algorithm (SHA-256), and output format (.sig sidecar), giving reasonable transparency. However, it omits details like whether existing files are overwritten or network access is needed.

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?

Single sentence clearly conveys the core function with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with key action and output format.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain input parameters or provide sufficient context for a signing operation. For a tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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% (no description in schema) and the tool description provides no explanation for 'doc_path' or 'signer'. Without these, an agent cannot determine the correct path format or what the signer parameter does.

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 clearly states the tool's action: apply a local detached signature with SHA-256 and timestamp, outputting a .sig sidecar file. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying a unique cryptographic signing function.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. The description lacks information about required environment (e.g., local filesystem) or dependencies (e.g., OpenSSL).

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