List Org API Keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat safety. However, it adds valuable context by stating that only metadata (name, enabled, expiry) is returned and secrets are never exposed, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. The second sentence adds a critical clarification (no secrets exposed). No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. It lacks mention of pagination or rate limits, which might be expected for a list tool, but for the scope, it is adequate.

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 has one optional parameter (output_format) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all. Although the parameter is simple and has a default, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('API keys for the Automox organization'), and the scope (organization-level). It also specifies what is returned (metadata) and what is not (secrets). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_global_api_keys and list_user_api_keys.

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?

While the title and description imply it is for organization-level keys, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other API key listing tools (e.g., list_global_api_keys or list_user_api_keys). No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions are provided.

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