arvan_list_ssh_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the region scoping but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response format, pagination, or authentication requirements. With annotations present, the description provides adequate but not extensive transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key context. No extraneous information is included, making it highly concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core function. However, it lacks details on the return type or list structure, which would improve completeness for an agent without an output schema.

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 schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions; the only parameter 'region' has no schema-level description. The description mentions 'in a region' but does not clarify the parameter's format, allowed values, behavior when null, or any constraints. This falls short of compensating for the missing schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states 'List SSH keys registered in a region' with the specific purpose 'for injecting into new servers.' This distinguishes it from other list tools (e.g., list_servers) and implies the resource type and scope.

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 context (when needing keys for server injection) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like arvan_create_ssh_key or other list tools. No exclusion criteria 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.