krdevui_sig_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens on signature failure, or any side effects. The only behavioral nuance is the embedded vs. detached distinction, which is insufficient for full transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and input modes, achieving maximum conciseness.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and current low schema documentation coverage, the description is far from complete. It leaves critical ambiguities about parameter usage and expected return values, making it marginally usable but insufficient for a fully informed invocation.

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 only 20% (only public_key has a description), and the tool description adds no clarification for the five parameters. The difference between pubkey, public_key, pubkey_file, and public_key_file is unexplained, and the phrase 'embedded EXE or detached .sig' provides only a vague hint about the path parameter. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verify a Kirikiri RSA-PSS signature, with specific detail about embedded EXE or detached .sig sources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like krdevui_sig_sign (signing) and krdevui_sig_inspect (inspecting).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (for verification, not signing or inspection) and mentions two input forms (embedded or detached). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, 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.