list_ssh_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by explaining that these public keys grant root access to the caller's sandboxes, but it discloses nothing about filtering, pagination, or the returned structure beyond the raw HTTP endpoint.

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?

Two short lines with no filler; the resource and its purpose are front-loaded. The HTTP endpoint line is slightly redundant but harmless for a zero-parameter tool.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description is largely sufficient. It leaves minor ambiguity about what the returned keys look like, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the schema is trivially complete and the description correctly adds nothing spurious.

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 identifies the resource precisely ('Your SSH public keys') and pairs it with the tool name list_ssh_keys to convey the listing action, plus a useful parenthetical explaining what the keys are for. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the add/delete SSH-key siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the closely related siblings add_ssh_key, delete_ssh_key, or get_sandbox_ssh_key. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and noun phrase.

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