ssh_key_list

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

The description states what the tool returns (type, fingerprint, loaded status), making its behavior transparent. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the action 'list' and absence of side effects imply safety. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden, which it meets adequately.

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 (two sentences), front-loads the primary action and output details, and includes a purposeful usage hint. There is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the returned fields. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., empty key directory) or error conditions, but for a simple listing tool, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 there is no parameter ambiguity. The description correctly omits any parameter details, and the schema aligns with this. No further explanation is needed.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('SSH private keys in ~/.ssh/') with clear attributes (type, fingerprint, loaded status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_key_load and ssh_agent_ensure by focusing solely on enumeration.

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 provides a clear use case: 'find which keys are available and which ones need to be loaded.' It implies when to use this tool (before loading keys) but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for loading or modifying keys). Still, the guidance is actionable and contextually relevant.

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