project_key_cache_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'emits secret material', hinting at sensitivity, and requires 'reveal:true'. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., cache invalidation), authentication needs, or error conditions. More detail on what 'emits' means (e.g., output format) would improve transparency.

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 sentence with an additional clause, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then adds usage conditions. Perfectly concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the output. It only says 'emits secret material', which is vague (e.g., format, structure). Also lacks details on idempotency or side effects. Given simple parameters, the description is partially complete but insufficient for an export tool that produces output.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that 'reveal' must be true to emit secret material, aligning with the schema description. It does not add new information beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter, but the added sentence reinforces the sensitive nature.

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 specifies the action 'Export', the resource 'local cached anon/service keys', and the scope 'for one project'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'project_key_cache_status' by indicating it actually exports keys, not just shows status.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'use only when a credential-required operation needs keys.' It also mentions the required parameter 'reveal:true'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools (e.g., project_key_cache_status).

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