list_ssl_keys

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the action ('List all SSL private keys') without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if any authorization is needed, what happens with no keys, or the return format. For a tool with no safety annotations, this lack of additional context is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It uses no unnecessary words and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It tells the user exactly what the tool does. However, with no output schema, a note about what the list contains or its order would add slight value, so it doesn't reach a perfect 5.

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, so the empty schema means 100% coverage. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since there are no parameters, it doesn't need to. The description clarifies the target scope ('SSL private keys'), which is the only relevant semantic context.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('SSL private keys') and scope ('on the account'), making it obvious what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_ssl_certificates (certificates vs. keys) and list_ssh_keys (SSH vs. SSL), so there is no ambiguity.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to list all SSL private keys for the account. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the straightforward nature of the list operation and the distinct resource ('SSL private keys') give clear context. Since it doesn't state when not to use it or point to alternatives, it misses the top score.

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