signalgrid_codesign_inspect

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals concrete behaviors: it runs specific commands (`codesign -dv --verbose=4`, `codesign --verify --deep --strict`, `spctl --assess --verbose=4`), returns a structured dict, and handles missing paths by embedding error text in fields rather than throwing an exception. This is rich, annotational over-delivery.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, an explicit use-case, a safety note, and clearly separated Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes value, and the markdown formatting enhances readability without being padded.

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?

The tool is contextually complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, return structure, behavior (including error handling), and safety. Despite having an output schema, the description redundantly documents the return keys, which is helpful and makes the tool self-contained.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Args' section repeats the path parameter but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (absolute path, .app or Mach-O, examples).

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect the code signature, signature validity, and Gatekeeper assessment of a bundle or binary on this Mac.' It also states the concrete question it answers ('is this app properly signed and notarized, and by whom?'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling signalgrid_* 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use to answer...' which gives a clear when-to-use context. It also notes 'Reads only; never executes the target,' implying safe read-only usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls 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.