explain_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool produces provenance information and indicates the categories of origin it reports. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or how it handles unresolved keys, leaving notable gaps.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and uses a colon to enumerate the relevant provenance sources. It is concise and easy to parse, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting parameter and usage details.

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?

The tool has three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must provide substantial guidance. It explains the general purpose but not how to fill in the parameters, what the response looks like, or how this tool relates to siblings such as get_chain or compare_with_upstream. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to explain the parameters, but it only gives meaning to 'key' by implying it refers to the key whose value is being explained. The 'type' and 'name' parameters remain completely unexplained, making it unclear how they identify the context or profile containing the key.

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 identifies the tool as explaining a key's value provenance and names the categories involved: originating link, overridden values, and engine default. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_profile or diff_profiles, which perform different operations. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 intended use is implied: use it when you need to understand why a key has a particular value or where that value came from. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternatives might be more appropriate for related tasks.

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