show_api_key

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 states the tool returns a bearer token, which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like security implications, rate limits, or whether the token is exposed in logs. The mention of 'debug' hints at a sensitive use case, but details are lacking.

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, clear sentence that states the purpose upfront. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., 'Returns' instead of 'Return'). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 (a tool that returns sensitive authentication data) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, security warnings, or potential side effects, which are crucial for such a tool. The 'debug' context is insufficient for safe usage.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info beyond the schema, but with zero params, the baseline is 4 as it adequately handles the absence of parameters.

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 states the tool 'Return[s] the bearer token from the Authorization header of the MCP settings' which specifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('bearer token'), but it's somewhat vague about the exact purpose beyond debugging. It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools, which are unrelated to API key retrieval.

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 mentions 'used to debug', implying a context for usage, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling tools are directly related, so there's minimal comparative guidance.

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