key_protect_list_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the response includes, pagination behavior, or any access requirements. The parenthetical about HSM backing is contextual, not behavioral.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward list 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values or important behavioral details. It does neither, leaving the agent without information about what the response looks like or any caveats.

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 limit and offset have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter context, but the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('encryption keys from IBM Key Protect'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like create/get/wrap/unwrap/delete. The parenthetical adds helpful context about the service type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_key for a single key). The description only states what it does, not when to select it, and lacks any prerequisite or exclusion criteria.

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