openai_list_project_api_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 explicitly notes that key values are always redacted, and explains pagination semantics for 'after' and 'limit'. While it doesn't cover auth requirements or rate limits, it addresses the most critical behavioral aspect for a listing tool.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clean Args list. Each parameter line is informative without redundancy, and the redaction note is a valuable addition with no wasted words.

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 list operation with an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context: it explains the resource, the key parameter (project_id), optional filters, and pagination. It references a sibling tool for ID lookup and discloses the redaction behavior. The description is complete despite lacking annotations.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description includes a detailed Args block explaining every parameter: project_id with a cross-reference, owner_project_access with valid values (active, inactive, any), after as a pagination cursor, and limit as max results. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'List API keys in a project' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like openai_get_project_api_key (single key) and openai_list_projects (list projects). The scope is explicit, and the note about redacted key values adds clarity.

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 clear context for what the tool does (lists API keys in a project) and references openai_list_projects for project_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like openai_get_project_api_key. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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