verify_ledger_live_codesign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: per-platform verification methods, return values (verified, mismatch, etc.), and the fact that it 'NEVER refuses signing.' 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?

Description is relatively long but front-loaded with key info ('READ-ONLY codesign verification'). Per-platform details, return values, and usage notes are necessary. Could be slightly more concise, but no wasted content.

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, but description fully enumerates all return values. Covers all platforms, prerequisites, and performance. Sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for binaryPath. The description adds meaning: defaults to canonical path, REQUIRED on Linux, and explains why (no canonical AppImage location). This goes beyond the schema definition.

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 it performs 'READ-ONLY codesign verification of the on-disk Ledger Live binary,' specifying the verb, resource, and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling verification tools (e.g., verify_ledger_attestation, verify_ledger_firmware) by focusing on codesign validation.

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 when to run: 'after first install / Ledger Live update / OS update.' Also notes performance: 'takes 100s of ms so this is NOT auto-fired on every signing call.' Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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