ssh_key_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. It discloses output format behavior ('compact' one key per line, 'json' full details), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention pagination or ordering, or discuss any response limitations. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information; there is no fluff, and the most important purpose statement is front-loaded.

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 the tool's low complexity, single optional parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains the parameter options and return format, and the sibling list clarifies how it differs from other SSH key tools.

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 schema provides only the parameter name, type, and default with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the two valid enum-like values, their meanings, and which is the default. This gives the agent everything needed to populate the format parameter correctly.

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 and resource: 'List all SSH keys in your Vultr account.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_key_get, which retrieves a specific key, and makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 usage—when you need all SSH keys—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ssh_key_get, ssh_key_create, or other key-related tools. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name and sibling list.

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