project_keys

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

Without any annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation with no mention of side effects, permissions required, error handling, or consequences of missing keys. The phrase 'from the local keystore' hints at locality but does not explain implications.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and output. It is not verbose, but could be slightly expanded with optional context (e.g., what the keys are used for) without being wasteful.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, error cases, or typical usage. It only states what keys are retrieved, leaving the agent with incomplete information for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% (project_id described as 'Project ID to get keys for'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus no uplift.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and explicitly names the resources 'anon_key and service_key for a project', clearly stating the tool's action and scope. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_secrets or project_info, which serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_secrets, auth_settings). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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