combell_ssh_keys_list_all

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the context that results include the Linux hostings each key is attached to, but it stays silent on pagination behavior, ordering, or result size limits beyond what the schema implies.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The core action and scope come first, and the return context follows naturally.

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?

With no output schema, the description still communicates enough about the return content: SSH public keys plus their Linux hostings. Optional pagination parameters are fully documented in the schema, making the tool self-service. It could explain the response shape in more detail, but nothing essential is missing for a simple read-only listing.

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 input schema already covers both parameters at 100% with descriptions for skip and take. The tool description does not need to add parameter detail and does not; it only reinforces the account-wide scope.

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 names the exact verb and resource: 'List every SSH public key on your Combell account.' The account-wide scope and the added detail about attached Linux hostings distinguish it from the narrower sibling combell_ssh_keys_list.

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?

'Every... on your Combell account' implies this is the account-wide listing tool, so an agent can infer when it applies. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the sibling combell_ssh_keys_list or any alternative, leaving that routing implicit.

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