list_signers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes that deleted signers are included, a key behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, read-only nature, or permission requirements, limiting 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no redundant words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks additional context such as expected output or typical use cases.

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% with only one parameter (project_id) described as 'The project ID'. The description adds context about 'KMS signers owned by the project' but does not clarify format or constraints beyond the schema, so it provides minimal added value.

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 all KMS signers owned by the project, including deleted ones. The verb 'list' and resource 'KMS signers' are specific, and the inclusion of deleted ones distinguishes it from other signer tools like get_signer or delete_signer.

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 (listing signers for a project) but does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_signer for a single signer or delete_signer for removal. No exclusions or contextual guidance are provided.

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