yaaif_api_key_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: only metadata is returned and plaintext is never retrievable, which prevents an agent from expecting the actual key. It does not state side effects (likely none) or error behavior, but the key limitation is clearly highlighted, exceeding the baseline for a simple get operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds a crucial limitation. There is no wasted wording, and every part adds value.

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 get-by-id with one parameter, the description covers the essential information: what to provide (key_id) and what to expect (metadata, no plaintext). It does not describe the exact structure of the metadata or error cases, but given the absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap. The uniqueness of the plaintext constraint is highlighted, making the tool effectively complete for invocation.

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 schema provides no description for key_id (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by id' implicitly defines key_id as the identifier of the API key, which is sufficient given the single parameter. However, it does not elaborate on format, constraints, or examples, providing only minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Get one tenant API key by id'. It specifies the resource (tenant API key) and the scope (one by id), and distinguishes itself from list/create/update/delete siblings. The additional note 'metadata only; plaintext is never retrievable' further differentiates it from any tool that might expose secrets.

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: call when you have a specific key_id and need its metadata. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'for listing all keys, use yaaif_api_key_list'. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, which is adequate but not outstanding.

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