list_virtual_keys

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds value by listing the return fields (total, name, slug, status, usage limits, etc.), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters or authentication requirements.

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 concise sentences: the first specifies the action and resource, the second provides usage guidance and return details. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 simple list tool with complete schema coverage and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and key return information. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the two parameters (page_size, current_page). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, qualifying for the baseline score 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 it lists provider API keys stored as virtual keys, specifies the context (Portkey org), and directly addresses a common use case (finding slugs). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_api_keys or get_virtual_key by naming the resource type and purpose.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool ('to find slugs before wiring prompts/configs or auditing limits'). It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., retrieving a single key).

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