get_access_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states the resource and implies a read operation via 'Get', but does not mention authentication requirements, whether the response contains sensitive key material, or any other side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a security-related configuration endpoint.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, and the key qualification 'signing keys for tokens' is included alongside the resource name. It is easy to scan and front-loads the purpose.

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 one-parameter read-style endpoint this is minimally adequate, but the lack of annotations or output schema means the agent has no information about return shape or when not to use it. The description covers only the resource name and leaves usage and behavioral details to inference.

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 coverage is 100%, with the only parameter account_id already documented as 'The account ID'. The description adds no further meaning about how account_id is used or what the returned configuration looks like, so the baseline 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?

Description names a specific operation ('Get') and resource ('Access keys configuration'), and the parenthetical clarifies these are signing keys for tokens, which separates it from Access app/policy/service-token tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the parenthetical does enough to identify the target.

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 is given on when to call this tool versus the many sibling Access tools such as list_access_service_tokens, get_access_certificate, or get_access_organization. The only implied context is the resource name itself, so the agent must infer usage.

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