yubikey-openpgp-info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the type of information returned but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The optional serial parameter behavior is implied but not expanded.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and outputs. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists three key return fields (key slots, touch policies, signature count). It does not describe the structure or any additional fields, but for a simple info tool this is sufficient. The sibling tools context does not require more detail.

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 the single parameter 'serial' already described in the schema as the serial number to omit if only one key is connected. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Get') and the resource ('OpenPGP application status'), listing specific outputs (key slots, touch policies, signature count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yubikey-fido-info or yubikey-piv-info, which target different applications.

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 implies usage for retrieving OpenPGP status but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit guidance on when not to use or prerequisites (e.g., a YubiKey must be connected). Sibling tools cover other applications, but the description does not differentiate further.

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