pbs_tape_key_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares the tool as 'READ-ONLY', states it never returns key material or password, and lists the fields that are returned. This provides good transparency about what the tool does and does not expose. However, it omits details about response format or potential errors, which would be needed for full completeness.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information ('READ-ONLY') and then precisely describes the tool's purpose and limitations. No extraneous words; every part 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single resource retrieval by fingerprint) and the presence of an output schema (indicated in context), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, what it does not return, and a prerequisite. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the fingerprint is the key identifier and that the response contains only public fields. It also reinforces the read-only nature and what fields to expect, which helps the agent understand the output structure.

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 is read-only, retrieves config for a specific PBS tape encryption key, lists exactly which fields are returned (created, fingerprint, hint, kdf, modified, path), and explicitly distinguishes the public-only nature. This provides a specific verb+resource scope that differentiates it from sibling tools like pbs_tape_key_create, pbs_tape_key_delete, etc.

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 implies usage context (retrieve details of a known encryption key by fingerprint) and mentions the requirement 'Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for similar purposes (e.g., pbs_tape_key_list for listing all keys). This is a minor gap but still clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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