get_hitl_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals auth requirements, a restart requirement, a specific 'start_login does NOT open this tool' exclusion, and the exact returned key material. It does not discuss side effects, but the verb 'Get' makes the read-only nature clear.

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 compact: one purpose sentence, one return-value sentence, and a short access note. Every sentence earns its place and the critical access caveat is separated for visibility.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, this description is complete: it states what is returned, what is required before calling, and how authentication differs from the start_login flow. An agent has enough information to call this tool 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 coverage is 100% with hitl_id already documented as 'HITL config ID', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic detail about where the ID comes from or its format, but no compensation is needed given the schema coverage.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Get'), object ('encryption keypair'), and scope ('for a HITL config'), then enumerates the exact return fields. This clearly distinguishes get_hitl_keys from sibling key-management tools like upload_hitl_keys and delete_hitl_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 gives explicit access context: a Proof account is required, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, and the server must be restarted. It also warns that start_login does not open this tool. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools for uploading/deleting keys, so it misses the top tier for tool-selection guidance.

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