list_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe response behavior or limitations beyond the schema-adjacent argument notes. The provided state values and pagination token are useful context, but the behavioral envelope is only partially described.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important usage signal, followed by a one-line operation summary and a short parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition, fluff, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The definition provides enough to select and invoke the tool correctly: when to use it, what the parameters mean, and how pagination works. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and no mention of what the response contains, but for a straightforward listing tool the missing return-shape detail is a minor gap.

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 itself has 0% description coverage and only raw JSON types, but the Args section compensates fully: it enumerates the four allowed key_state values, specifies the max_results range (1-100), and explains next_token as a pagination token from a prior response. This is exactly the semantic value the schema lacks.

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 identifies the action ('List APC keys') and resource, and frames the use case as auditing key existence, finding ARNs, or checking state. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_key or list_aliases, so it misses the top score.

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 opening sentence gives explicit conditions for use: auditing existing keys, finding a key ARN, or checking key state before an import/operation. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for those cases, so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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