tiktok_sign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that 'enable_trace' modifies net_enable settings, implying a side effect (mutation), while 'last' is read-only. However, it does not explicitly state whether 'last' is idempotent, whether 'enable_trace' is reversible, or any permission or rate-limit constraints. The description only hints at behavior without full disclosure.

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 very short at around 50 words, but it packs in the essential information: purpose, actions, and a preference hint. However, the structure is somewhat run-on and uses jargon ('MetaSec', 'Argus', 'captureNet+signTrace') that might impede readability. A bulleted list would improve clarity without adding length.

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 tool has two very different actions and no output schema, the description should explain the return format for 'last' more precisely (e.g., the structure of sign headers entries) and specify the side effects of 'enable_trace' (e.g., whether it persists or is temporary). Currently, it only gives examples of header names and mentions net_enable parameters, leaving gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (limit default 20, action enum). The description adds semantic value by explaining the behavior of each action value ('last' returns recent sign headers, 'enable_trace' configures net_enable). This helps the agent understand the effect of each parameter choice beyond the schema.

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 states the tool provides 'MetaSec sign observability' with two specific actions: retrieving recent sign headers ('last') and enabling sign trace ('enable_trace'). It also notes it is 'NOT offline Argus recompute', which distinguishes from a similar but different operation. However, the term 'MetaSec sign' may be unclear without domain knowledge.

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 implicitly suggests preferring 'session_open' for captureNet+signTrace, indicating an alternative for combined functionality. It also warns against using it for 'offline Argus recompute'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other siblings like net_enable or when not to use it.

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