list_ssh_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the HTTP method (GET /ssh/) and implies a read-only operation through the word 'List.' However, it does not explicitly state auth requirements, side effects, or scope (e.g., all keys on the account), which could be valuable.

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 sentence plus a concise example. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and adds no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with zero parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and useful endpoint detail. It doesn't mention authentication or pagination, but these are either implied or likely covered by the output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for this simple tool in context.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The example `list_ssh_keys()` reinforces that no arguments are needed, adding marginal value 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 clearly states 'List SSH keys registered on the Vast.ai account,' which uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('SSH keys registered on the Vast.ai account'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_ssh_key (which creates a key) and get_instance_ssh_info (which targets a specific instance's SSH info).

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 implies usage by specifying it lists account-level SSH keys, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getting instance-specific SSH info). No clear exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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