claims_card_sign

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: recursive key sorting, field exclusion, and output format. It is transparent about the pure computational nature, though it omits authorization or error handling details.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 complex nested input and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (64-char hex) and key hash behavior. It could mention validation or errors but remains functional.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning by explaining the document is a Claims Decision Card and which fields are stripped before hashing, complementing the schema's brief description.

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 explicitly states the tool computes a canonical SHA-256 hash for ed25519 signing, specifying key behaviors like recursive key sorting and exclusion of specific fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like decision_card_signature_check.

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 indicates the tool is a preprocessing step before offline signing, which sets usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for similar tasks.

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