sign_bytes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool signs bytes but lacks behavioral details such as the signing algorithm (e.g., Ed25519), output format (e.g., signature in hex), security implications (e.g., secret key exposure risks), or error handling. This is inadequate for a cryptographic operation with no annotation support.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of a cryptographic signing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the signing algorithm, output format, security considerations, or error cases, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 schema fully documents parameters (bytes, sk, network, itemsPerPage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between bytes and sk or the purpose of network in signing. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Sign bytes with a secret key' clearly states the action (sign) and target (bytes), but it's vague about the cryptographic context (e.g., digital signatures for authentication/verification) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'sign_transaction' or 'verify_bytes', which are related but serve different purposes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a secret key), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'sign_transaction' (for transactions) or 'verify_bytes' (for verification), leaving the agent without context for selection.

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