BitLocker recovery key details

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

The description adds critical context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by warning that this endpoint returns sensitive secrets and explaining the default omission of the recovery_key field. It also discloses that setting raw: true exposes the actual key material, which is essential behavioral information for safe use.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function and filters, the second warns about sensitivity and appropriate usage, and the third explains the default behavior and raw flag. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary wording.

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?

For a 4-parameter sensitive tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, filters, and the critical raw flag behavior. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it and how to invoke it correctly, including the security implications.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly naming the three filterable fields and providing extra context about the raw parameter—clarifying that it controls exposure of the actual key material and defaults to false.

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 opens with 'Retrieves BitLocker recovery key records' specifying the exact resource and action, then details the fields returned (key protector ID, drive letter, computer, domain) and filter options. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bitlocker_tpm_report by focusing specifically on recovery key material.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Only use it when key retrieval is genuinely needed') and when not to ('never for routine reporting'), which is strong guidance. However, it stops short of naming specific alternative tools for routine reporting, so it does not fully satisfy the 'vs alternatives' criterion.

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