solidrpc_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral guarantee — that key secrets are never revealed in the listing — which matters for an agent deciding whether this call is safe to expose in output. It does not address pagination, ordering, or the shape of returned metadata, which keeps it below a 5.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource before the security caveat. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 and an empty input schema, the description is the only source of information about results, yet it does not say which metadata fields are returned or whether the list is paginated. For a trivial no-arg tool this is acceptable but leaves a real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description carries no additional parameter burden. There is nothing parameter-related left ambiguous.

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 and resource ("List RPC key metadata"), which clearly separates it from write-side siblings such as solidrpc_create_key and solidrpc_revoke_key. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read/inspection counterpart to create/revoke key operations. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus solidrpc_manage or solidrpc_usage, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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