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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It conveys that the operation lists keys and supports prefix filtering, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state non-mutating nature, ordering, or pagination semantics beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 in Korean that states the primary purpose first, followed by the optional capability. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits any mention of the required session_id or the limit parameter, relying entirely on the schema. It also lacks comparative context with sibling tools, which is needed for a complete picture.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions prefix filtering, which is already documented in the schema. It adds no extra meaning for session_id or limit beyond what the schema provides.

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 returns the list of all keys in the session and supports optional prefix filtering. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like scratchpad_read or scratchpad_write.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does, without mentioning exclusions or suggesting when to prefer this over scratchpad_read or other sibling tools.

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