get_keys

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns public key plaintext, secret key plaintext is always null over MCP, and provides rotation/revocation timestamps. It also warns about what it cannot do (return full secret key). No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 yet comprehensive: first sentence states purpose, then describes returned fields, then usage guidance and alternative. Every sentence adds value without fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 thoroughly explains what is returned (kind, prefix, timestamps) and what is not (secret key plaintext). It also references the required predecessor tool (list_games) and links to the dashboard for missing functionality, making it complete for the tool's scope.

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 describes gameId as 'UUID of the game to fetch keys for (from list_games)' with 100% coverage. The description adds context that gameId comes from list_games, but does not add new information about the parameter itself beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3.

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 'Get a game's API keys,' specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'API keys'. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on keys, which none of the other tools (bootstrap_leaderboard, get_board_top_n, etc.) cover.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'to retrieve the public key for a client_only integration, or to check which keys exist / have been revoked.' It also provides an alternative for the full secret key (dashboard). It implies that list_games should be used first to obtain the gameId.

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