key_protect_get_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Get details' without explaining whether this is a read-only operation, what specific details are returned, or any potential errors (e.g., key not found). The verb implies read-only, but there is no additional context about response structure or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is no redundant or extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter get operation, the description is minimally sufficient: it identifies the action and requires key_id. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify what 'details' means (e.g., metadata, policies, or key material). Given that the tool could return security-sensitive data, more detail about the response would improve completeness. The missing usage guidance also lowers the score.

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% (key_id is fully described as 'The ID of the key to retrieve'). The description does not add any extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('details of a specific key'), and the system ('IBM Key Protect'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like key_protect_list_keys (listing) and key_protect_delete_key (deletion) by specifying retrieval of a single key's details.

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 purpose is implied: use this when you need details for a specific key, identified by key_id. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like listing keys or wrapping/unwrapping. The context of Name and sibling tools suggests the use case, but the description does not articulate it.

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