list_ssh_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all SSH keys' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word ('List', 'all', 'SSH keys') contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks context on authentication, output structure, pagination, or error scenarios. For a list operation in a server management context, more behavioral details would help the agent use 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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 'List all SSH keys' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('SSH keys') with the scope 'all'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_ssh_key' and 'delete_ssh_key' by indicating it's a read operation. However, it doesn't specify if it lists keys for a specific user, account, or project, which could differentiate it further from potential alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context (e.g., after creating a key), or exclusions (e.g., not for filtering). With sibling tools like 'get_primary_ip' for specific retrieval, the lack of comparison leaves usage ambiguous.

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