list_signers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the inclusion of deleted signers, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or return format, leaving gaps in 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 with no waste. It is front-loaded with the main action. While concise, it could benefit from a brief mention of the return type without losing efficiency.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and scope. However, it lacks details about the output (e.g., what properties are returned) and any pagination or ordering, which a complete description should include.

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 a single parameter 'project_id' described in schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond restating 'owned by the project', so it provides no extra value over the schema.

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 the resource 'KMS signers', specifies scope 'owned by the project, including deleted ones', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_signer (specific signer) and 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?

While not explicit, the description implies when to use this tool (listing all signers, including deleted) versus siblings like get_signer (single signer) or delete_signer (deletion). The inclusion of 'including deleted ones' subtly guides against using it when only active signers are needed.

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