verify_signature

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially fulfills the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that verification is local ('로컬') and can diagnose query_hash mismatches. However, it does not mention idempotency, side effects (e.g., no mutation), required permissions, or response format. The description adds some value but is not fully comprehensive.

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, dense sentence that packs purpose, method, and diagnostic scope without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action ('로컬 검증') and efficiently adds key constraints ('같은 순서로'). It could improve by breaking into two sentences for readability.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides moderate coverage. It explains the diagnostic purpose and links two parameters to specific use cases, but omits mention of the 'method' parameter's role in verification logic, the 'token' prefix handling, and any post-verification output structure. Additional context on return values or errors would improve completeness.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking 'query' (GET verification) and 'rawBody' (POST hash comparison) to use cases, which goes beyond the raw schema descriptions. However, the description does not explain the 'method' parameter's role in hash computation or the 'token' parameter's format tolerance beyond what the schema notes.

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 uses specific verbs ('verify', 'diagnose') and resources ('JWT', 'query_hash'), clearly stating it validates a JWT locally and identifies 401 causes, including query_hash mismatches. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sign_request' and 'generate_signed_request' which focus on creation, not verification.

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 usage for debugging 401 errors and checking hash consistency, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'signing_guide' for learning about signing, or 'list_error_codes' for error interpretation. No direct exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., requiring the secret key) are mentioned.

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