list_keypairs

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already indicate a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds that it lists key pairs registered in this project, giving context about the scope (project-level). It does not contradict annotations and adds minimal extra value, but since annotations cover the key aspects, a 4 is appropriate for adding the project scope.

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, concise sentence that fully expresses the purpose. No filler words. Perfect front-loading.

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 has no parameters, annotations declaring read-only and open world, and the description clearly states the purpose, the description is complete enough. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The only minor gap is not specifying whether the list includes all key pairs or just those associated with the current user, but this is not critical.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, as there are no properties). The description does not need to explain parameters, and there is nothing missing. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 action (list) and the resource (SSH key pairs), and scopes it to a project. It is distinct from siblings like list_servers and list_networks because the resource is unique, though it could have been more explicit about the project scope being the current one.

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 usage for retrieving key pair information, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools are all listing operations for different resources, the resource name alone is sufficient to differentiate, but explicit 'when to use' guidance is missing.

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