list_collection_access_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions optional filtering but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior (cursor parameter implies it but isn't explained), rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List collection access keys') and adds a qualifying clause ('with optional filtering by collection ID'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for a listing tool with straightforward parameters.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (listing with filtering and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination mechanics, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool that likely returns structured data (access keys), the lack of output details leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (collectionId for filtering, cursor for pagination). The description adds marginal value by explicitly mentioning 'optional filtering by collection ID', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List collection access keys' specifies the verb (list) and resource (collection access keys). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_collection' or 'get_collection_roles' by focusing specifically on access keys, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar listing tools like 'list_collections' or 'list_workspace_roles'.

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 minimal guidance: 'with optional filtering by collection ID' hints at when filtering might be useful, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't clarify when to use this versus other access-related tools like 'get_collection_roles' or 'delete_collection_access_key', leaving usage context largely implied.

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