List SSH keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the response is paginated and callers should keep following pages until exhausted, plus the perPage bounds and default.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the pagination caveat follows. Nothing repeats the title or annotations unnecessarily.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and pagination adequately. It is slightly thin on the page parameter and on what a key record contains, but annotations and the small schema carry the rest.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents perPage's range (1-200) and adds the default (50), which the schema does not state, but it never mentions the page parameter at all. Partial compensation for a two-parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource ("List account SSH public keys"), which immediately distinguishes it from the write siblings create_ssh_key and delete_ssh_key and the single-item get_ssh_key. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 implied by the verb (listing SSH keys is the read/all alternative to get_ssh_key), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The pagination instruction is the only procedural guidance offered.

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