safe_mind_get_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that the key lives in memory for the session only, is also returned for persistence as SAFE_MIND_API_KEY, and that it fails on unverified email or bad credentials. It doesn't cover rate limits, key expiry/rotation, or account-lockout behavior after bad credentials, which are relevant for a credential-based mutation.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing, front-loaded with the action and followed by the ordering rule, side effects, and failure modes. No redundancy with the title or schema.

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-param auth tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (the key), its session lifetime, and failure conditions. It omits the lifetime/validity of the issued key and whether repeated calls invalidate prior keys, which an agent managing sessions would benefit from knowing.

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%, so both email and password are already documented in the schema. The description adds the semantics of 'verified' account and credential correctness but no format or source details beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 specific actions (log in with email/password, create an API key) on an identifiable resource, and explicitly scopes the tool ahead of company, survey and analytics tools. It also names the sibling safe_mind_verify_email as the prerequisite path, so the agent can distinguish it from registration/verification tools.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('call this before any company, survey or analytics tool'), an exclusion ('unless SAFE_MIND_API_KEY is already set'), and routes the failure case to safe_mind_verify_email. Nothing about invocation timing is left to inference.

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