keygen_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the returned value is a secret, without noting sensitivity, exposure risk, caching, or whether the same key is returned for every node, so it contributes little beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single short phrase with the action and the returned value front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse to be maximally useful, but it is not padded.

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 param-less read tool with no output schema, the description leaves the important question unanswered: since it takes no node identifier, it is unclear what key is returned and for which node(s). No auth/permission context is provided either, which matters for a secret-retrieval endpoint.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so per the rubric this is the baseline-4 case. No parameter semantics need clarification.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('SECRET_KEY'), and the target system ('Remnawave Node'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as system_generate_x25519 or nodes_get, and it does not explain what SECRET_KEY is used for.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative guidance is given. The tool has no parameters, so an agent can infer it is a simple retrieval, but nothing in the text says when this key is needed or why an agent would call it instead of another node metadata tool.

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