resign_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is a 'check' (suggesting read-only), but does not explicitly confirm safety, side effects, or permissions needed. For a diagnostic tool, more transparency about non-destructive behavior would help.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for return fields), but no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes return values: 'signing method (ldid/codesign/none), available certs, and readiness.' This covers the main outputs for a simple check tool. No significant gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description's job is minimal. It adds value by explaining what the tool examines (tools and identities), which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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: 'Check signing environment: available tools and code signing identities.' This is a specific verb-resource combination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like resign_ipa_tool which performs an actual signing operation.

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 this is a diagnostic tool to check readiness before signing, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., when to run before resign_ipa_tool). No exclusions or context provided.

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