edubase_get_integration_keys

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which clearly mark this as a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details, such as whether keys are returned in plain text or require special permissions.

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 extremely concise at just two words, but it effectively communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary text. However, slightly more detail (e.g., 'for a given integration') would improve without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the presence of a rich output schema (not shown but declared), the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't explain that the returned data is sensitive (keys/secrets) or that the tool might be subject to access controls. The annotations cover safety, but the description lacks full context for error handling or response structure.

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 single parameter 'integration' is required and described as 'integration identification string' in the schema (100% coverage). The description 'keys/secrets' clarifies that the return value includes sensitive credential data, adding value beyond the schema.

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 'Get integration keys/secrets' clearly indicates the tool retrieves integration keys or secrets. It implies a specific integration context, which is reinforced by the required 'integration' parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_integration' which likely gets integration details, not keys.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edubase_post_integration_keys' (which presumably creates keys) or other 'get' tools. An agent would have to infer context from the name alone.

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