List permission keys

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; "List" does imply a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which is the main thing an agent needs. However, it doesn't disclose that results may be scoped by the panel credentials resolved from the four connection parameters, nor anything about result shape or size.

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 tight sentence with the resource named first and the usage hint second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing what a permission key looks like (string identifier vs. object) and whether the list varies by panel. For a zero-required-arg lookup tool this is acceptable but thin.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four connection parameters (panel, baseUrl, clientKey, applicationKey) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable at baseline when the schema is this complete.

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 and resource — listing available subuser permission keys — and ties itself to subuser_create, which separates it from the CRUD siblings like subuser_list and subuser_get. It doesn't explicitly say it is the lookup companion for subuser_update or subuser_set_files, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical "use with subuser_create" gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-call framing, no statement that it takes no required arguments, and no mention of the other subuser mutation tools that also consume permission keys.

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