timeweb_list_ssh_keys

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary action and does not mention pagination behavior, output format defaults, or any side effects, leaving important context undisclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose without any waste.

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?

Despite being simple, the description is sufficient for a read-only list operation with no output schema. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the lack of additional context (e.g., pagination defaults) is acceptable given the tool's simplicity, though it could be more complete.

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 input schema provides a 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, format, offset), so the description adds no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('SSH keys'), and the scope ('in the account'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ssh_key or delete_ssh_key. It is specific and avoids ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or contrast with tools like get_ssh_key, creating a gap for agents deciding between tools.

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