list_stored_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool only shows stored names, that storage is cleared on plugin restart, and provides an example output showing the response shape. This is adequate for a no-side-effect listing operation, though it does not explicitly state that no data is modified.

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 concise and front-loaded: the main purpose appears first, followed by usage context and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, and the example output is compact and informative.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, why it is useful, a relevant behavioral caveat (cleared on restart), and the exact shape of the response. An agent can invoke this tool and interpret its result without additional information.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not explain input semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to document, and the example output usefully documents the returned key names and count, which is the closest thing to parameter/output semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Zeigt alle gespeicherten Namen im Session-Speicher der Bridge.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and its scope (session storage keys). It also differentiates itself from siblings like clear_store by focusing on listing rather than mutating.

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 gives clear context: it is 'Nützlich zum Debuggen' and explains what information it reveals (which element-ID lists are present). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the debugging-oriented framing is sufficient for a simple read-only listing tool.

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