getApiKeys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is read-only ('GET /postframe/api-keys') and includes a rate limit (100 requests per 1m), which is valuable context. It does not mention response format or error behavior, but for a simple list operation this is sufficient.

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 a single, tight sentence that packs purpose, rate limit, and read-only nature. Every word earns its place, and the most important info (the resource) is front-loaded.

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 parameterless, output-schema-less read tool, the description covers the essentials. However, the existence of a similarly named sibling ('listApiKeys') creates an unresolved ambiguity about when to use which. This omission is a meaningful gap for an agent navigating these tools.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. Nothing more is needed.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('API keys'), with the HTTP endpoint for precision. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'listApiKeys', which appears to serve the same purpose. This ambiguity prevents a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over any alternative. The rate limit is mentioned but is a constraint, not a usage guideline. No exclusions or conditions are given. This fails to help the agent choose between the two similar list tools.

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