pqc_key_store_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one genuinely important trait, that no secret material is exposed, which signals a safe inspection operation. It omits whether the call is strictly read-only, where the store lives, pagination/ordering, and behavior on an empty or uninitialized store.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action, scope, and return shape all land immediately, and the security note is tacked on efficiently.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it names the resource and the fields returned, and warns that no secrets appear. Minor gaps remain around empty-store behavior, ordering, and whether filters exist.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical about returned metadata partly compensates for the missing output schema.

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 all stored keys") and enumerates the returned metadata (names, types, fingerprints), which lets an agent separate it from pqc_key_store_load or pqc_key_store_delete. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration step before load/delete, but the description never says when to call it, whether the list is filtered or ordered, or what to do if it returns empty. No when-not guidance and no named alternative.

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