List management keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: results are masked and plaintext secrets are never exposed, which sets expectations for what the caller can and cannot retrieve.

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 short sentences with no waste; the scope (workspace and app keys) is front-loaded before the security caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and the masked/secret guarantee, which is what an agent most needs. Minor gaps remain around result shape (fields per key) and whether pagination applies.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter discussion.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (workspace and app management keys), and adds the qualifier 'masked' which clarifies the returned representation. It is clearly distinguishable from create_api_key, revoke_api_key, and rotate_publishable_key, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb — an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting existing management keys. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_publishable_key or list_apps, and no note about ordering, pagination, or result limits.

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