keyring_list_available

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds important behavioral context: it is a listing operation, and it explicitly guarantees 'never values,' which is critical for security-sensitive tool use. It also notes that the parameters are used for identity verification, clarifying why an agent would provide them. It does not describe response format or error behavior, but the main behavioral guarantee is clear.

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 main behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact two-parameter list with examples. There is no filler; every sentence contributes either to purpose, safety, or parameter semantics.

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 simple list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key points: what it lists, what it returns, and the identity parameters. It is missing explicit usage routing relative to siblings, error conditions, and a clear statement of whether at least one identity argument is expected, leaving some gaps in an otherwise adequate definition.

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?

Scheema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add paramter meaning, and it does. did is explained as 'Agent's DID (did:key:...) for identity verification,' and agentmail_inbox as 'Agent's AgentMail address as fallback identity,' giving the agent a basis for choosing between them. It stops short of specifying whether one is required or how precedence works.

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 a specific action—list secrets the calling agent can access—and specifies the resource and a key distinction: it returns names and descriptions only, never values. This naturally separates it from sibling tools like keyring_authenticated_request, which imply performing some other keyring operation.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs to discover which secrets it can access. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the routing decision to the agent.

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