list_api_keys

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

The annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a critical privacy guarantee — that key secrets are never returned — which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's output limitations.

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 provide all necessary information without redundancy. The key detail about secrets is stated separately for emphasis.

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 read-only list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns (metadata), and what it excludes (secrets). The annotations cover the safety profile, so no further context is needed.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description provides no additional parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty schema. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 tool's action ('List'), the resource ('API keys on the account'), and the specific aspects included ('scopes and last-used time'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling list tools focused on other resource types.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any stated exclusions. However, the scope is clear from the name and description, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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