add_key_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, persistence, or duplicate handling. This leaves the agent without critical safety and operational context for a mutation-like tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple and the input schema covers all parameters, but the description lacks usage context, behavioral transparency, and conceptual clarity around what constitutes a 'key file'. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing operational guidance. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates 'purpose' without additional detail. The schema alone adequately defines the parameters.

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 ('register') with a resource ('key file') and scope ('in the project context'). It clearly distinguishes from file I/O tools like write_file and read_file, and from generic context tools like add_to_context_list by the 'key file' specialization, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 when one needs to register a key file with its purpose, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference related tools. Without exclusions or alternatives, it meets only the 'implied usage' bar.

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