mess_get_auth_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context: it specifies that expired keys are included (behavioral detail) and mentions authentication alternatives (auth_key from mess_create_auth_key or session from mess_login_msit), which helps the agent understand prerequisites.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. It's appropriately sized, but the Args section could be more concise by integrating with the purpose statement rather than being separate.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only operation), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by Returns section), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, and includes behavioral context like including expired keys, which is sufficient for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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%, but the description's Args section documents the single 'params' parameter with its two possible fields (auth_key, session). However, it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides in its property descriptions (e.g., auth_key from mess_create_auth_key, session from mess_login_msit). The description compensates partially but not fully for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all auth keys for the current user'), specifying scope ('including expired ones'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mess_get_auth_key_info (which gets info for a specific key) and mess_create_auth_key/mess_delete_auth_key (which modify 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving authentication keys, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mess_get_auth_key_info or mess_get_me. It mentions the parameter options but doesn't explain when to choose auth_key versus session authentication.

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