sign_mcp_manifest

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

Beyond annotations (which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive), the description discloses side effects: 'may write save_path; uses local identity store. No network.' It also describes the return format. This fully informs the agent of behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences: main action, usage guidance, side effects/return format. Front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral side effects, and return format. Even though an output schema exists, the description still provides a high-level return structure. Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required), this is complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it specifies the manifest is an 'Unsigned ssx360.mcp-manifest.v1 document from scan_mcp_server' and save_path is an 'Optional file path.' This is helpful but not significantly beyond the 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?

Description clearly states the tool's action: 'Ed25519-sign an MCP tool-surface manifest for offline install verification.' It specifies the output format and differentiates from siblings by mentioning 'Use after scan_mcp_server' and 'Prefer verify_mcp_manifest for checks.'

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use after scan_mcp_server. Prefer verify_mcp_manifest for checks.' Also notes side effects and what the tool does not do (no network). This clearly helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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