get_access_key_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the raw endpoint path: it does not explain what references are returned, whether results are paginated, or what permissions are required.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. The HTTP endpoint restates routing information already implied by the tool name and schema without adding useful explanation.

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?

There is no output schema and no explanation of what "references" means for an access key, how many might be returned, or how to interpret them. For a domain-specific reference-listing tool, the definition leaves an agent guessing about the result shape.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented integer parameters. It only embeds project_id and key_id in the URL template, giving no meaning beyond their names—such as what a key reference is scoped to or whether IDs must exist.

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?

"Get Key Refs" is little more than a restatement of the tool name, and the abbreviation "Refs" is ambiguous without domain context. The HTTP endpoint adds a hint that this retrieves references for an access key under a project, but it does not specify what a "reference" is or how this differs from get_access_key or list_access_keys.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than get_access_key, list_access_keys, or the many sibling get_*_references tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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