_sign_digest

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

The description discloses that the tool signs a pre-hashed digest without additional hashing, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to explain other important aspects such as error handling, output format, or security implications.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient for a straightforward operation. However, it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or sections, and could benefit from additional information without becoming verbose.

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 presence of five parameters with zero schema documentation, no annotations, and an output schema that likely describes return values, the description does not sufficiently compensate. It omits crucial context for correct invocation, such as parameter formats or usage constraints.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the five parameters (private_key, digest, curve, sigencode, deterministic). Users are left to guess formats or valid values, reducing the tool's usability.

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 verb 'Sign' and the resource 'digest', and specifies the method 'using ECDSA (no hashing)', which distinguishes it from related tools like _sign_data that likely perform hashing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like _sign_data or _verify_digest_signature. There is no mention of prerequisites, input format requirements, 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.