ssh_key_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the directory and output fields, which is adequate for a simple listing tool. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., if ~/.ssh/ does not exist) or limitations (e.g., handling of subdirectories).

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant information, and the key points are front-loaded.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description effectively covers the tool's purpose, scope, and use case. It does not detail the return format, but that is predictable for a listing tool. Slightly more on error scenarios could improve completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description provides useful context about what is listed (keys in ~/.ssh/ with specific attributes), adding value beyond the schema.

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 the tool lists SSH private keys in a specific directory (~/.ssh/) and specifies the output fields (type, fingerprint, loaded status). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_key_load.

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 includes a clear use case: 'find which keys are available and which ones need to be loaded.' It implicitly suggests when to use this tool over alternatives like ssh_key_load, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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