List API keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden: it does disclose scope (client keys only, not application keys), which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about whether key secrets/full key values are returned, whether results are paginated, or what auth/panel context is required — meaningful gaps for a credentials-listing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with no padding, and the resource plus scope qualifier are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the completeness gaps elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema, the description need not explain return values, and parameter semantics are covered by the schema. Still, for a tool listing account credentials it leaves open whether secrets are exposed and how the panel/override parameters interact with the listing, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and each of the four optional parameters (panel, baseUrl, clientKey, applicationKey) is documented as an inline override or saved-panel selector. The description adds nothing about how these overrides affect the listing, so the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List the account's ... API keys") and narrows scope to client keys, which separates it from the create/delete siblings. It doesn't explain the client-vs-application key distinction explicitly, but the qualifier is still doing differentiating work.

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 statement of when to use this versus account_apikey_create, account_apikey_delete, or how to obtain application keys. The verb "List" implies a read operation, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are named.

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