get_access_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves an access key but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., what happens if the key is missing (error handling), whether it's cached or fetched live, or if it requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that handles sensitive credentials.

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 very concise—two short sentences with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the ':return:' annotation is slightly informal and could be integrated more smoothly, preventing a perfect score.

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 the complexity of handling access keys (sensitive data) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value format (e.g., string type, encoding), error scenarios, or security implications. This is inadequate for a credential-fetching tool in a trading 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to document). The description doesn't need to add parameter details beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description accurately reflects the lack of inputs.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get access key from environment variables.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('access key'), and indicates the source ('environment variables'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_secret_key' or 'get_api_key_information,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., environment variables must be set), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_secret_key' or 'get_api_key_information.' The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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