get_signoff_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses the read-only nature, the null conditions (never signed or most-recently revoked), and that signing is inaccessible via MCP. This goes beyond basic operation to explain side effects and limitations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the return value and states key edge cases and constraints. No wasted 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 an output schema exists and no parameters, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool returns, when it may return null, and that it cannot perform signing. It is complete for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema). Baseline for zero parameters is 4; the description adds meaningful context about the return value but correctly does not need to document parameters.

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 function: retrieves the current active human sign-off of the registry with specific fields (operator, signedAt, registryHash, optional note) or null. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, all of which serve different purposes (classification, registration, hashing, spending, budgeting).

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 explicitly notes this is a read-only operation and that signing is a CLI-only ceremony not reachable via any MCP tool. This provides a clear exclusion for when not to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other sign-off-related tasks.

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