list_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states it 'lists keys' but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not confirmed), pagination behavior (hinted by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List keys in a key-value store'), making it immediately scannable. Every element earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors), usage guidelines, and output details (e.g., format of returned keys). While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide a holistic view needed for effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (store_id, limit, exclusive_start_key). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying key formats or pagination strategies. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('keys in a key-value store'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_key_value_store' (which retrieves store metadata) by focusing on keys within a store. However, it doesn't specify if this lists all keys or filtered subsets, slightly reducing specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing store), exclusions (e.g., not for retrieving values), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_key_value_store' (for store details) or 'get_key' (if it existed for specific keys). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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