list_api_keys

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already fully disclose the safety profile, and the description is consistent with them. The description adds value beyond annotations by enumerating the return payload ('total plus id, type, status, workspace/user scope, limits, defaults, alert emails, and creation mode'), which is useful behavioral context. No annotation contradiction.

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 with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a one-sentence sibling disambiguation and a compact return summary. Every clause 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?

For a read-only list tool with zero required parameters, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the definition is complete: annotations carry the safety profile, the schema documents pagination and filtering, and the description names the distinguishing sibling, summarizes the return shape, and states the use case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: page_size, current_page, and workspace_id each carry their own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, though it implicitly hints at what workspace/user scope filters relate to via the return-field 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List Portkey API keys'. The intended purpose ('for auditing access, scopes, defaults, limits, and expiration') is concrete, and the description distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_virtual_keys by scope ('Use this for API keys only'). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without inspecting the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this for API keys only; use list_virtual_keys for provider keys.' This names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference. The audit framing also communicates the appropriate use context for this tool versus the many other key-related siblings.

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