timeweb_get_ssh_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it retrieves information, without disclosing the response structure, error behavior (e.g., 404 on missing key), or what 'detailed information' includes. The ambiguity could lead to incorrect assumptions about private key exposure or return fields.

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 no redundant words. It is cleanly structured and appropriately concise for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description and schema provide enough for selection and invocation. The only gap is that the description does not hint at the contents of the returned 'detailed information,' which is currently open-ended. For a read operation, this is a minor 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%: both parameters (ssh_key_id and format) have clear descriptions and the enum is documented. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('SSH key'), and 'specific' signals that this tool retrieves one key by ID, distinguishing it from siblings like timeweb_list_ssh_keys and timeweb_create_ssh_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?

The description implies usage when the agent needs details for a particular SSH key, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The need for an ID is only implied by 'specific' and confirmed by the schema.

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