Sign a pack with AWS KMS

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: network reachability, private key never leaving KMS, submission of only the digest, and the return shape ('aws_kms_signature' block). No contradiction with annotations; readOnlyHint=false is consistent with 'returns the pack with a signature block attached'.

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 well-structured: purpose first, key caveats in bold, then an Args list. It is concise overall, but the Args section repeats schema content already visible to the agent, adding some redundancy without much new information.

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's open-world nature and existing output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: network access, installation requirement, cryptographic behavior, and return value. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide whether this tool fits the use case and invoke it safely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's Args section mostly duplicates the schema text, with only minor added phrasing like 'hosting the key' and 'to sign', which does not materially deepen parameter understanding.

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?

Clearly states the verb ('Sign'), the resource (pack's SHA-256 canonical digest), and the method (AWS KMS). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the network surface and that the private key never leaves KMS, unlike closed-world signing tools.

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?

Explicitly states the requirement for the [aws] extra and that this tool operates over the network, contrasting with closed-world tools. However, it does not name specific alternative tools (e.g., sign_pack_vault) or give explicit when-not-to-use criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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