VPS_getAttachedPublicKeysV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('retrieve'), which is safe, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or data consistency guarantees. The lack of contradiction and basic safety inference keeps it at a mid score.

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 two sentences: first defines the purpose concisely, second provides usage guidance. No redundant words, every sentence adds value.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and use case. It could mention pagination or response format, but it's not severely incomplete for a straightforward read operation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters (virtualMachineId, page) described. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states 'Retrieve public keys attached to a specified virtual machine', specifying the action (retrieve), resource (public keys), and scope (attached to a specified virtual machine). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like VPS_getPublicKeysV1 (likely all keys) and VPS_attachPublicKeyV1.

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 second sentence 'Use this endpoint to view SSH keys configured for specific VPS instances' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like VPS_getPublicKeysV1 for listing all keys.

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