get_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not what 'details' are returned, whether private key material is exposed, whether any permission is required, or whether the operation is a safe read. One sentence of pure retrieval intent is insufficient for a key-access 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriate for a one-parameter lookup. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than wasteful.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the resource and the lookup key. It still leaves the return payload undefined, which for a 'key details' tool is a meaningful omission.

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% and the single parameter is documented in the schema as 'The key code to retrieve'. The description merely repeats that the lookup is by keyCode, adding no format, source, or validation detail, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb (get) and resource (a key identified by keyCode), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to separate itself from siblings such as get_public_key or list_keys, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling alternatives (get_public_key, list_keys, export_key, etc.). The only implied guidance is that a keyCode must be known in advance, which is never made explicit.

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