VPS_getPublicKeysV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it correctly indicates a read operation, it does not detail pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The behavior is implied but not explicit.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core action and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate completeness by stating the purpose and usage. However, additional context about the returned data structure or pagination behavior could further enhance completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'page' parameter with a description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 uses the verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'public keys associated with your account,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, or attach public key tools. It also specifies the use case: viewing SSH keys for VPS authentication.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('view available SSH keys for VPS authentication'), providing clear context. However, it does not include exclusions or mention alternatives, such as using VPS_getAttachedPublicKeysV1 for keys attached to a virtual machine.

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