List SSH and GPG keys

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

Beyond the read-only and open-world annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: `verified` absence is forge-dependent, Gitea omits the field on SSH keys, Forgejo reports it, absent does not mean unverified, explicit false is meaningful, and Gitea's GPG error conflates absent and unverified keys. It also explains GPG address activation and that key material is dropped in favor of fingerprints and key ids.

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 front-loaded with purpose and parameter behavior, then moves into caveats. It is longer than typical for a one-parameter list tool, but the length is carrying important meaning because there is no output schema and the forge-specific `verified` semantics are subtle.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description must explain return-value semantics, and it does: GPG entries carry covered addresses and activation status, signature verification depends on activated addresses, and key material/armored blobs are omitted in favor of fingerprints and key ids. It also covers the Gitea/Forgejo `verified` discrepancy thoroughly enough for an agent to interpret results correctly.

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 100%, and the single `username` parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the authenticated-user default and its relationship to `verified`. The description repeats the omission behavior but adds little parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List an account's SSH and GPG keys.' It also clarifies the optional username behavior, so an agent can immediately tell what the tool does and what object it operates on. No sibling tool covers key listing, so differentiation is not an issue.

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 gives clear operational context: omit `username` for the authenticated user, and it explains why that matters because only that list reliably carries `verified`. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, but there is no competing key-listing sibling and the usage context is clear.

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