get_api_key

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it shows the current key and URL, implying read-only behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects or disclose any other behavioral traits, which is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence plus a usage directive, front-loaded with the purpose. Every part earns its place with no wasted words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (API key and MCP server URL) and when to use it. It is complete for a simple getter tool.

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?

Input schema is empty (no parameters). Schema description coverage is 100%. With 0 parameters, the description needs no additional param info; a baseline of 4 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 clearly states the tool shows the current API key (token_ext) and MCP server URL. It uses a specific verb ('Ver' = view) and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like regenerate_api_key.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: when the user asks for API key, token, how to connect MCP, or configure Claude/Cursor/VS Code. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is clear and sufficient for a simple read tool.

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