List SSH Keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns all SSH public keys added to the project, clarifying scope and content. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or response structure, but for a simple list operation with rich annotations this is adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, but it contains slight redundancy: the first and second sentences both say it lists all SSH keys. The third sentence about SSH key usage is useful context. Despite minor repetition, it is efficient and clear.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys scope (all SSH keys), project context, and purpose. It could mention the return format or that it returns a list, but 'List all' implies a list, and the response_format parameter is documented in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (response_format), which has a description and enum. The description does not add any parameter-specific details, but since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 SSH keys in the project, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('SSH keys') and scoping to 'the project'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing server types or locations, and complements get_ssh_key for individual keys.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to see all SSH keys in the project) and provides context about SSH key usage for server authentication. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like get_ssh_key, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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