combell_ssh_keys_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the operational scope (keys attached to a specific hosting) but no further behavioral details such as error behavior, ordering, or response shape.

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 one short, direct sentence that front-loads the verb and names the exact resource. It contains no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and no unnecessary background.

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 operation with one documented parameter and safe annotations, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It does not cover return formatting, but the verb 'List' implies the result; the main gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance toward combell_ssh_keys_list_all for account-wide key lists.

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 single required parameter domain_name is fully documented in the schema with the description 'The Linux hosting domain name', and schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that the parameter refers to a hosting, but it adds no significant meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('SSH public keys attached to a Linux hosting'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like combell_ssh_keys_list_all, combell_ssh_keys_add, and combell_ssh_keys_delete by scoping the operation to a single hosting.

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 only implied by the phrase 'attached to a Linux hosting'; the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of combell_ssh_keys_list_all or other key-management siblings. There is no mention of exclusions or preference conditions, so the agent must infer the choice from context.

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