get_relay_linking_key

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and barely adds context beyond the name. It does not describe side effects, safety, or whether the key changes, which are important for a tool retrieving a 'linking key'.

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 remarkably concise at only 8 words, front-loading the action. Every word serves a purpose, with no extraneous information.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but could be improved by explaining what the linking key is used for or mentioning that it's retrieved from the current relay setup context. It does not cover the output format or potential errors.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds the context 'for relay setup', which is meaningful beyond the schema. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 'Get current linking key for relay setup', specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'linking key' in the context of relay setup. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are about other entities.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or compare with other getters, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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