openai_get_project_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for disclosing behavior. It mentions the redacted value only, which is a key behavioral trait, but lacks other details like auth requirements or response specifics. This is partially compensated by the output schema.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear one-line summary. The Args block is efficient and adds useful guidance without unnecessary fluff.

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 get tool with an output schema, the description covers the core function, parameter sourcing, and redaction behavior. It is sufficiently complete given the tool's low complexity.

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 0%, but the description adds valuable meaning by explaining each parameter with cross-reference to related list tools. This is a strong compensation, though it doesn't provide format or constraints.

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 tool gets a single project API key's details, with a specific nuance that the value is redacted. This differentiates it from sibling tools like listing or deleting API 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?

It provides context for using the tool by referencing related tools for obtaining project_id and api_key_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it compared to alternatives, though this is implied by the singular scope.

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