project_keys

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It adds behavioral context by stating 'from the local keystore', implying local retrieval, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or whether keys are cached. This is a minimal disclosure for a read-only operation.

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 one short sentence, front-loading the purpose and resource. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no complex behavior, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention the output format but is otherwise complete.

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% with a clear description for 'project_id'. The description adds meaning by specifying exactly what is returned (anon_key, service_key), which is beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 it retrieves specific items (anon_key and service_key) for a project, using a specific verb 'get'. It distinguishes itself from siblings as no other tool in the list mentions retrieving 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving keys but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any conditions for use. Given the simplicity and lack of conflicting siblings, it is adequate but lacks when-not language.

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