Get commit gpg signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the return model (CommitSignature wrapper) and the ParameterError raise, which is modest but real added value; it says nothing about auth scope or how to target a specific commit.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, but most of the body is auto-generated Args/Returns/Raises boilerplate that conveys no tool-specific information. Nothing is padded lengthwise, but the space used is largely wasted.

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?

With 40 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is the only documentation channel and it fails to explain how to specify the commit or filter results. Only the return type and error behavior are covered.

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 0% across 40 parameters, and the description compensates with '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request' — actively misleading, since the schema is closed (additionalProperties: false). It never mentions that project_id is required or that something like commit_hash/ref must identify the commit.

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?

A clear verb+resource ('Get GPG signature of a commit') that identifies the tool's operation unambiguously. It does not distinguish this from siblings like gitlab_get_commit or explain how a commit is identified, so it stops short of a 5.

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 call this vs gitlab_get_commit, which likely returns the same commit object, nor any prerequisites. The only usage line is the boilerplate '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request.'

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