sign_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that secret_key is not transmitted (local only), which is a key safety trait. However, it does not mention whether the tool makes any network calls, what happens on invalid keys or missing inputs, or any error behavior. The positive safety statement is useful but leaves several behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the main purpose (local JWT computation for debugging). It is compact, uses simple language, and conveys key points without redundancy. A minor improvement could be structuring the output components as a list, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool has 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides core purpose and safety but lacks a complete usage story. It does not explain how to construct inputs (e.g., which operationId to use, how to fill pathParams), nor does it detail the output format beyond naming three components. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps for a full understanding.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for 5 out of 8 parameters (63% coverage), including hints for 'body', 'server', 'accessKey', 'secretKey', and 'pathParams'. The description adds overall purpose and a safety note about secret key locality but does not add detailed semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 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 computes a JWT locally for a single request using real keys (debugging purpose). It specifies the result includes JWT, query_hash, and a ready-to-use curl command. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'generate_signed_request' or other alternatives, so purpose is clear but not fully positioned among 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?

The description marks the tool for debugging ('디버깅용') and emphasizes that the secret key is used only locally, implying it is safe for testing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_signed_request' or 'verify_signature', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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