bardo_sign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat non-destructiveness. It adds context about using the spirit key or service-derived key, which is useful. However, it does not disclose output format, authentication needs, or potential side effects like key usage.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary information.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and a cryptographic operation, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a signature), the role of optional parameters, or error conditions. A user or agent would need to infer or look elsewhere.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It only implicitly covers 'message' ('UTF-8 message'), but fails to describe 'service' and 'session_token', leaving them ambiguous. The schema provides only names and types, no further meaning.

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'), the resource ('a UTF-8 message'), and the key type ('spirit key or service-derived key'). This differentiates it from siblings like bardo_encrypt (encrypt) and bardo_verify (verify), though it does not mention the output (signature).

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 implies use for signing messages but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., having a key), or alternatives (e.g., bardo_verify for verification). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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