get_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the action ('Get detailed information') and mentions the return format ('including algorithm, shape, and versions'), which adds value. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions that would be helpful for a tool accessing encryption keys.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a prerequisite note and clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job covering purpose, parameters, and return information. However, for a tool dealing with encryption keys, more behavioral context (e.g., security implications, error handling) would improve completeness, especially with 2 required parameters and no structured output documentation.

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. It explains both parameters: 'key_id: OCID of the key to retrieve' and 'management_endpoint: Management endpoint from the vault (get from vault details)'. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's minimal titles, though it doesn't specify formats or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific encryption key.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('encryption key'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_keys' or 'get_vault' beyond the specificity of retrieving a single key.

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 provides clear context for usage with the note: 'You must first get a vault to obtain its management_endpoint.' This indicates a prerequisite and workflow guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_keys' or other sibling tools.

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