faber_get_deploy_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves a public key without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. It mentions the key is 'for manual deploy key setup', which adds some context but lacks operational details needed for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve the SSH public key for an app') and adds clarifying context ('used for manual deploy key setup'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple retrieval tool but lacks details on return values (e.g., key format) and error handling. It covers the basic purpose but does not fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps in operational understanding.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'app username' entails or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Retrieve') and resource ('SSH public key for an app'), with additional context about its use case ('for manual deploy key setup'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'faber_get_env' (environment variables) or 'faber_list_apps' (listing apps) by focusing on a specific cryptographic key retrieval.

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 implies usage when manual deploy key setup is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., automated deployment methods or other key-related tools). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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