pbs_encryption_key_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility. It clearly states the tool is read-only, never returns sensitive key material or passwords, and that no individual GET endpoint exists. This provides key behavioral context beyond a simple list operation.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey all essential information. It front-loads the read-only nature and clearly lists what is and is not returned, with no wasted words.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the output contains (metadata fields). It also covers the prerequisite config and the absence of an individual GET. The tool is sufficiently contextualized for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The schema already documents both parameters (proximo_target and include_archived) with their defaults and descriptions.

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 tool lists registered PBS client encryption keys, specifies the returned metadata fields, and explicitly mentions what is never returned (key material, password). It also notes this is the only read on this plane, differentiating it from potential sibling tools.

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 for listing encryption keys and notes a prerequisite (PROXIMO_PBS_* config), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. No comparisons with sibling tools are provided.

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