read_key

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it does not return memory content, and handles are ranked by relevance to the query. It also implies read-only behavior via 'inspect', though could explicitly state it is non-destructive.

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 concise with front-loaded purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from usage notes), but overall each sentence adds value.

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?

While the description covers core functionality and parameter usage, it lacks details on error conditions, return format details, and what happens if the key_id is invalid. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining key_id, limit, offset, and query parameters. It describes how query affects ranking and how limit/offset enable pagination. However, namespace is not addressed, leaving a gap.

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: 'Inspect one key cluster' and specifies what it returns and does not return. It differentiates from siblings like read_memory by noting that it never provides memory content.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Call read_memory on promising handles'), how to page with limit/offset, and the importance of passing the original query for relevance ranking. This effectively distinguishes it from alternatives.

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