krdevui_sig_sign

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions signing modes but does not state whether embedded signing modifies the file in place, whether a new .sig file is created, whether a private key is required, or what happens if the key is missing. This is insufficient for a potentially destructive signing operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Sign a file') and packs in the key modes. There is no fluff or repetition, making it extremely concise and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, a one-sentence description is wholly inadequate. It leaves critical questions unanswered: what do the various private key options mean, how are offsets interpreted, what is returned on success, and what are the failure modes? The description needs substantially more detail to be usable.

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 only 20% (2 of 10 parameters have descriptions), and the tool description only mentions 'auto_krkr' by name. It does not explain the private key parameter variants, offset semantics, or ignore ranges, so it fails to compensate for the low 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 action (sign) and resource (a file), and specifies two modes (detached .sig or embedded) plus an optional flag (auto_krkr). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like krdevui_sig_check and krdevui_sig_inspect, though the reference 'like krdevui SignUnit' is somewhat cryptic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that verification or inspection tools should be used for checking signatures, nor any prerequisites like needing a private key or when to choose detached vs embedded mode.

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