verify_signature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the function without any details on side effects, authentication needs, or what happens on failure. For a verification tool, it should at least clarify if it is read-only.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is under-specified given the lack of annotations and parameter details. It could convey more information without significant length increase.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values or expected outcomes. It does not address what the tool returns upon successful verification or error conditions, leaving the agent without complete context.

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%. The description merely repeats the parameter name 'signature_id' without adding any additional meaning, format constraints, or examples beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 'Verify an existing signature' and the resource 'by signature_id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sign_action' (which creates signatures) and 'verify_output' (which verifies output). However, it could be more specific about what verification entails (e.g., checks validity or authenticity).

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It only implies that you need a signature_id, but no comparison with sibling tools like 'check_policy' or 'preflight_check'.

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