list_virtual_keys

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by detailing the return fields: 'total plus name, slug, status, usage limits, rate limits, reset state, and model config.' There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the main purpose, and the second adds usage context and output details. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no redundant words.

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 existence of an output schema and the rich annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and return fields. It lacks explicit mention of pagination behavior or filtering, but these are implied by the parameters. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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 100% coverage for both parameters (current_page and page_size). The description does not add any additional meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema provides. Hence, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 'provider API keys stored as virtual keys in your Portkey org'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_virtual_key, create_virtual_key, etc., which operate on single keys or have different actions.

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?

The description provides a specific use case: 'Use this to find slugs before wiring prompts/configs or auditing limits.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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