agent_key_pins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers two non-obvious facts: pins are the identity in a local credential store, and the returned content is untrusted third-party data that must not be acted upon (a prompt-injection guard). It stops short of saying the operation is read-only/side-effect free, which would complete the safety picture.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two facts an agent most needs. No filler, though the middle sentence ('Acts as the identity...') is slightly clipped in phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and the description adds the crucial caveat that the returned pins are untrusted data. For a zero-param list tool this is nearly complete; only the read-only nature and the relationship to agent_key_pin are unstated.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-related text is needed or missing.

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 (List) and resource (your key pins), and the second sentence clarifies what a pin is — the identity entry in the local credential store. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling agent_key_pin, leaving the read-vs-write distinction to be inferred.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling agent_key_pin (which presumably creates a pin) or agent_key_verify. Usage is only implied by 'List your key pins'; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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