list_kv_keys

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 behavioral disclosure. It reveals only the bare action of listing keys — nothing about pagination behavior, key ordering, how limit and prefix interact, or response format. This is close to a restatement of the tool name rather than an addition of behavioral context.

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?

Six words with zero fluff and the core action front-loaded. Efficient and scannable, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than demonstrating deliberate compression of rich content.

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?

Adequate for a simple filtered-list tool: all parameters are documented in the schema and the verb 'list' implies a read operation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the limit/pagination behavior and the distinction from sibling KV list tools are left unstated, so an agent must rely on the schema alone for operational confidence.

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%, with meaningful descriptions for all four parameters (limit, prefix, account_id, namespace_id). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List keys in a KV namespace'. The noun 'keys' inherently separates it from sibling list_kv_namespaces (which lists namespaces) and get_kv_namespace (which fetches a single namespace), though the description never explicitly names those alternatives. Clear and unambiguous about what the tool operates on.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_kv_namespaces or get_kv_namespace, no exclusion criteria, and no context about namespace scoping. All routing decisions are left entirely to the agent's inference from the name and schema.

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