List object storage access keys

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added detail is pure upside: ordering, the fact that all keys are simultaneously valid, the null-label/null-createdAt shape of the original key, and an explicit sensitivity warning about returned secrets. It stops short of mentioning pagination behavior or what happens on an unknown storageUnitId.

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?

Three short sentences with the resource and ordering front-loaded, then key semantics, then a security note. Every sentence carries content, though 'All keys work at the same time' is slightly informal phrasing that could be read as ambiguous.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (secret, label, creation time), the ordering, and the notable null-value edge case for the original key. Missing only the relationship to the similar sibling tool and error/precondition behavior.

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% and the paging parameters are documented there (page, pageSize with defaults and max). The description of the unit scope adds nothing the storageUnitId schema text does not already say, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list S3 access keys of an object storage unit) and even specifies ordering (oldest first) and returned fields (secret, label, creation time). The one gap is sibling differentiation: a close-named sibling 'get_object_storage_keys' exists and the description does not explain how this tool relates to or differs from it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The dependency on a storage unit is implied by the resource phrasing and the storageUnitId parameter, but the agent must infer that list_object_storage_units must be called first and how this differs from get_object_storage_keys.

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