get_access

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool creates a NEW key each time, stores it in a local config file, requires network access, and that the key includes 100 free operations then $0.01 per operation. It also warns that calling it again creates an additional key rather than returning the existing one, which is a critical behavioral trait.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers when to call, what it does, side effects, pricing, and the alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but the density is justified given the lack of annotations.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the failure mode, the side effect, the pricing model, the network requirement, and the sibling tool to use instead. An agent has everything it needs to decide whether and how to call this tool.

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 the schema already documents the 'name' parameter. The description adds value by explaining the parameter is cosmetic only and giving an example ('claude-desktop'), which helps the agent decide whether to pass it. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('bigapi API key'), and a clear scope ('for this machine'). It also distinguishes itself from get_balance by explicitly noting that calling it again creates a new key rather than returning the existing one, which prevents confusion with the sibling tool.

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 description explicitly says when to call it ('once when no key is configured'), what happens if you don't ('other bigapi tools fail'), and what to use instead if you need to check an existing key ('use get_balance'). This is clear, actionable guidance with an explicit alternative.

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