get_contentpilot_key_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the operation is read-only, the returned key is masked (so no full secret is exposed), and it requires the cms:manage permission. The output schema covers return structure, so this is reasonably complete for a small read tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by the permission requirement. No wasted words.

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?

The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, and the description covers read-only, masking, and auth. It still leaves project_id semantics and the relationship to the sibling create/revoke key tools unaddressed, which is a gap for a tool whose result may guide key management decisions.

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 0% for the single project_id parameter, so the description is expected to compensate. It only implies project scoping through the phrase 'project Pull API key' and gives no format, source, or lookup guidance for project_id.

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 states a specific verb (Read) and resource (masked project Pull API key status), which is clear on its own. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby create_contentpilot_key or revoke_contentpilot_key siblings, but 'status' vs 'create'/'revoke' is distinguishable by inference.

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?

'Requires cms:manage' is a useful prerequisite, which edges it above pure silence. However, it never says when to call this versus create_contentpilot_key or revoke_contentpilot_key, so usage is only implied.

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