List API Keys

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns key metadata (name, prefix, creation date) but never the full key value. This security-sensitive disclosure goes beyond the structured annotation and sets correct expectations for the agent.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant phrases. It efficiently conveys purpose, context, and return limitations.

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 operation with one parameter and read-only annotation, the description provides everything needed: what it lists, why it matters, and what it returns/excludes. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit mention of returned metadata fields.

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 schema fully covers the single parameter projectId with its own description, and the tool description does not add further parameter semantics. Per the rubric, with 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists all API keys for a ULink project, using the specific verb 'List' and resource 'API keys'. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_api_key and revoke_api_key by focusing on listing metadata only. The addition that it returns metadata but not full key values further clarifies its scope.

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 implies usage context by explaining API keys are used for server-side and SDK authentication, and that the tool lists them by project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the sibling tool names and clear listing intent provide sufficient guidance for an agent to know when this is appropriate.

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