list_kv_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses prefix filtering, cursor pagination, and the returned fields (key names, expiration, metadata), which implies a read-only listing operation, but it says nothing about required permissions, rate limits, or result ordering/caps.

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, front-loaded sentences: purpose, capabilities, return shape. Nothing is repetitive or wasted, though it is somewhat terse rather than richly informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully summarizes the return payload, and the parameter surface is fully covered by the schema. The main gap is the absence of usage routing relative to the many KV and list siblings.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including limit defaults/max and cursor semantics. The description echoes prefix and cursor without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 keys in a Workers KV namespace') and scopes it precisely to keys within a namespace. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_kv_namespaces or get_kv_value, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select 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?

Mentions prefix filtering and cursor pagination, which implies when the tool is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternatives (e.g., 'use list_kv_namespaces to discover namespaces first, get_kv_value to read values'). Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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