get_sub_api_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the call is read-only, requires specific permissions, or the impact of missing keys. The description is too sparse to inform safe usage.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the purpose and define the parameter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

While the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks behavioral context and usage constraints. It is barely adequate for an agent to use correctly, needing more detail on return format or prerequisites.

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 description includes an Args section defining sub_member_id as 'Sub UID,' which adds meaning beyond the input schema's title. However, the explanation is minimal and does not elaborate on format or constraints.

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 'Get all API keys of a sub account.' The verb 'Get' and the resource 'API keys of a sub account' are specific. The tool name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like create_sub_api_key and delete_sub_api_key.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to retrieve keys for a master account or other account types. It lacks context for usage decisions.

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