list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that values stay encrypted on disk, reassuring the tool is non-mutating and safe. However, it does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like idempotency or latency, which are minor for a list 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?

Two concise sentences, each adding distinct value: listing keys and encryption behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Exemplary conciseness for a simple tool.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's essential function. It could be improved by specifying the output format (e.g., returns a list of key names), but for a simple list operation the current description is nearly complete.

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 input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate. The lack of parameters is inherent and does not require further explanation.

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 lists all keys in the vault, specifying the exact resource (keys) and scope (all). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fetch' (retrieve a value) and 'store' (add a key), making purpose unambiguous.

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 for listing keys but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'fetch' or 'store'. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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