sysknife_get_authorized_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructiveness, and a closed-world scope, so the description's 'Read-only' line is redundant. It adds nothing about access requirements, error behavior when the user doesn't exist, or what the returned key data looks like.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the operation and the key parameter come first. The leading 'Read-only SysKnife action `GetAuthorizedKeys`.' restates the tool name and is largely wasted space, but the total length is not excessive.

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 read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. It still omits permission requirements and the shape of returned key entries (key type, comment, fingerprint), which an agent may want before calling.

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 schema declares no properties (additionalProperties: true, 0 params), yet the description names a required `username`. That is the only real added semantic value, but it conflicts with an empty schema and it doesn't say whether the username must be a local account or what format is expected.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'list SSH authorized_keys for a user'. The resource is distinct from the many status/list siblings, so an agent can pick it out without opening the schema. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation (e.g., vs. get_sudo_grants or get_password_aging), keeping it at 4.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., whether root is needed to read another user's keys), and no exclusions. The only hints are the implied per-user scoping and the 'read-only' label.

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