rundeck_list_keys

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the basic action (list keys/dirs at a path) but omits behavioral traits like authentication needs, recursion behavior, output format, or read-only status. Minimal disclosure beyond the action itself.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a brief usage suggestion. No wasted words, front-loaded with core action. Every character earns its place.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it doesn't confirm whether results include metadata, keys vs directories differentiation, or pagination—information that could be relevant for an agent. Still meets minimum bar.

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 covers parameter `path` with 100% coverage (description: 'Storage path (e.g., 'keys/myapp'). Empty for root.'). Tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'keys and directories at a path' with context 'key storage'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like `rundeck_get_key_metadata` or `rundeck_create_key` by focusing on browsing the key tree.

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?

Description includes 'Use to browse the key tree,' which implies its purpose, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., `rundeck_get_key_metadata` for details). No when-not usage or exclusions are provided.

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