radiant_list_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it handles this well by explicitly stating that WIFs are never returned and specifying the exact fields that are returned. For a read-only list operation, this is meaningful behavioral and privacy-relevant disclosure beyond the basic verb.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the key constraint (WIFs never returned). Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it explains what the tool lists, what it returns, and what it deliberately does not return. No additional information is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('aliases registered in the server-side keyring'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also narrows the return set to alias, derived address, and entry time, which distinguishes it from token-listing or wallet-listing siblings.

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 clearly communicates the context: use this tool to enumerate keyring aliases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the keyring-specific scope and the presence of related sibling tools like radiant_register_key and radiant_remove_key make the intended use obvious.

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