ncloud_kms_get_public_key

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context by limiting the tool to RSA2048 or ECDSA keys. This warns the agent that other key types are unsupported, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence with high information density. It front-loads the verb and resource, includes a key constraint, and contains no filler or redundant text.

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 with one parameter, a clear read-only purpose, and supportive annotations. While there is no output schema and the return format (e.g., PEM, base64) is not specified, the description is sufficient for a straightforward getter. Missing return format is a minor gap but does not hinder task selection.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter 'keyTag' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies entirely on the schema, which already covers 100% of parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource: 'the public key for an asymmetric key'. It also adds a key constraint ('RSA2048 or ECDSA only') that differentiates this from other KMS operations. No sibling tool retrieves public keys, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 you need the public key of an asymmetric key) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. There are no competing tools for this exact operation, but guidance is minimal and relies on the name and context.

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