ssh_keys_list

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

With no provided annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only says 'show', implying a read-only operation without stating output format, error behavior, or whether a connection is needed. No additional behavior context (e.g., side effects, performance, auth) is provided.

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 sentence containing only the essential information—what the tool shows and for which sibling. Nothing extra, and the content 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?

For a no-parameter, list-only tool without an output schema, the description provides a usable starting point but leaves ambiguity about what 'keys' are and what the returned data looks like. It is sufficient to invoke the tool, but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate result directly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the input schema already fully describes the input. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to add parameter detail; it would only be 5 with extra relevant context like output shape for the list.

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 names a concrete action (show key names) and ties it to a specific sibling tool, `ssh_shell_send`, which helps differentiate it from the many other SSH tools. The wording is mostly clear, though the exact meaning of 'keys' (keyboard keys vs. authentication keys) is implied rather than explicit.

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 context is implied but not explicit: mentioning `ssh_shell_send` signals that this list is meant to be consulted before using that tool. There is no when-not guidance or mention of alternative listing tools among the siblings, so the agent must infer the intended workflow.

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