kvp_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that keys are listed and does not mention pagination via cursor, the effect of limit, ordering, namespace requirements, or failure behavior. These are meaningful gaps for a list tool.

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 filler and is appropriately front-loaded. It is efficient, but the brevity contributes to missing useful details such as limit and cursor behavior, so it is not maximally helpful.

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 3 schema parameters with 0% coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. It omits pagination semantics, the meaning of limit, and any namespace-related edge cases or expectations.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies that 'namespace' refers to a KVP namespace. The purpose of 'limit' and 'cursor' parameters is left entirely unspecified, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('keys in a KVP namespace'), which makes the core action clear and naturally distinguishes it from kvp_get, kvp_put, and kvp_delete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools or define the 'KVP' acronym, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like kvp_get or kvp_put, nor are there any exclusions or contextual hints. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and the brief description.

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