Read the recommended first-project recipe end to end: which steps run here and which need the local crypto plane. Takes no arguments and returns a prose walkthrough. Call this before provisioning anything — it is cheaper than discovering the plane boundary one failed tool at a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and the description reinforces this with 'Read' and 'returns a prose walkthrough.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: no arguments are accepted, the output is prose, and calling it is non-destructive and low-cost. It does not contradict the 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 focused sentences: the first states what the tool does and returns, the second states when to call it and why. Every phrase earns its place, with no repetition of the tool name or title, and no filler.
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?
For a no-argument, read-only informational tool, the description is complete: it states the content scope, output type, invocation timing, and value proposition. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly says the return is a prose walkthrough, so an agent knows what to expect. No critical information 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' confirming the empty input schema. This is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool, with no missing semantic guidance.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('the recommended first-project recipe'). It also explains what the tool covers: which steps run here and which need the local crypto plane, making its purpose concrete and distinguishable from the many provisioning and management siblings.
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?
It explicitly instructs when to call the tool: 'Call this before provisioning anything.' It also gives the rationale—avoiding the cost of 'discovering the plane boundary one failed tool at a time'—which helps an agent decide to use it early in a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and many descriptions explicitly call out their near neighbors (list_envs vs list_env_groups vs list_group_envs). The main ambiguity is the three-way env/group listing cluster and the partial overlap between list_orgs and whoami, but the descriptions largely mitigate misselection.
Snake_case verb_noun naming dominates (list_*, create_*, delete_*, revoke_*, rename_*), and the kms_ prefix is used consistently. A few outliers like audit, billing, whoami, signup, get_started, local_tool_for, and setup_local_crypto break the strict pattern, but they are still readable and no camelCase or chaotic mixing is present.
40 tools is far above the 25-tool threshold and creates a heavy surface for an agent to navigate. The broad domain of apps, groups, envs, secrets, members, tokens, KMS, and leases partially justifies the size, but several list/delete/revoke families could be consolidated.
The set covers control-plane lifecycle well for apps, groups, and invitations, and provides solid list/delete/revoke coverage for envs, branches, tokens, leases, and KMS. However, create operations for envs, branches, tokens, and leases, plus all secret value reads/writes, are deliberately delegated to the local crypto plane; local_tool_for and setup_local_crypto help bridge the gap, but the server is not standalone-complete.
