ncloud_kms_verify

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already clear. The description adds a key constraint about supported key types (only RSA2048 or ECDSA), which is valuable behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The description is brief yet informative, covering the core action and a critical constraint.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean success/failure, or signature details). For a verification tool, the result format is important. Additional context about idempotency or error behavior is missing.

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%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add new information beyond what the schema already provides for data, keyTag, and signature. Baseline of 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 action 'Verify' and the resource 'a digital signature against data'. It also specifies the supported key types (RSA2048 or ECDSA), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_kms_sign (which creates signatures) and ncloud_kms_encrypt/decrypt.

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 implied usage is for verifying signatures, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites or alternatives (e.g., ncloud_kms_sign for signing, ncloud_kms_get_public_key to retrieve the public key).

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