ncloud_pca_sign_end_csr

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

The description states 'Sign a provided CSR', which implies a mutation (creation of a certificate). However, annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, directly contradicting the description. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about the tool's safety profile.

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?

Description is two concise sentences with no superfluous information. Key action and returned value are front-loaded, making it efficient for quick parsing.

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?

Critical information is missing: the description says 'The existing CA certificate is returned' but does not specify the primary output (the signed end-entity certificate) or return format. No output schema exists, so description should compensate but fails to fully explain the response structure. The contradictory annotation further undermines 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (caTag and csrPem). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Sign a provided CSR') and the purpose ('to issue a new end-entity certificate'). It distinguishes from sibling PCA tools like pca_get_ca or pca_sign_sub_csr by specifying end-entity certificate versus CA operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pca_issue_end_cert or pca_sign_sub_csr. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from context.

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