safe_mind_get_api_key

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful lifecycle detail: the key lives only in session memory and requires the SAFE_MIND_API_KEY environment variable for permanent use. It omits failure behavior for unverified accounts and whether the key is returned in the response body, but the credential-storage disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the core action stated first and the persistence caveat second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter credential tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the intent, the precondition, and the key's lifetime. It could say more about error cases (unverified account) or how the key is surfaced, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It names both credentials ('email + password') in the right roles, but adds no format or constraint details beyond what the bare schema already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Obtain an API key') plus a precondition ('for a verified Safe Mind account'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like safe_mind_register (creates accounts) and safe_mind_verify_email. An agent can tell what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied via the 'verified account' qualifier; the description never says when to call this versus safe_mind_register or safe_mind_verify_email, nor whether it must be called before other safe_mind_* tools. The precondition is useful but the agent must infer the ordering itself.

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