list_private_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that keys are 'used for server authentication and Git repository access', which adds some context, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and add value with contextual information about key usage. Every sentence earns its place without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the what and why of the tool but lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or output format, which are important for a list operation in a system with sensitive data like SSH keys.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, aligning with the baseline for zero 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'SSH private keys stored in Coolify', with additional context about their use for server authentication and Git repository access. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_private_key' by focusing on listing rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., 'list_applications').

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. While the description implies usage for viewing SSH keys, it doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparisons with other tools like 'get_server_resources' that might overlap in functionality.

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