get_hitl_keys

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses the full auth/profile requirement, the environment variable needed, and two distinct permission-scoped return shapes (private-key material vs public_key/kid only). This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot derive from the 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose before the permission and access detail. Every sentence carries information; the ACCESS block is compact and non-redundant, though the two-paragraph split is slightly verbose for one operation.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields for both permission cases (public_key, encrypted private key, KDF salt, kid). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('HITL config ID'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get the encryption keypair for a HITL config,' immediately distinguishing it from siblings like upload_hitl_keys, delete_hitl_keys, and get_hitl. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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 clarifies permission-gated usage (hitl:read vs confirmations:create), the account prerequisite, and notes that start_login does NOT open this tool — a genuinely useful negative. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives to use instead, so it is strong context without explicit routing.

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