list_api_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns only metadata (not secret values), which is a key safety behavior, and explains the authentication requirement. It does not mention potential rate limits or pagination, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, and the access guidance is separated logically. The access paragraph is slightly verbose but still efficient and useful.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, what it returns, and how to gain access. It does not enumerate the specific metadata fields, but that level of detail is not required for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters and complete schema coverage, so the description needs to add little here. It correctly implies the operation is scoped to the authenticated account, which serves as the implicit filter.

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 action ('List all API keys'), the scope ('for the authenticated account'), and the output type ('key metadata, not the secret key values'). This distinguishes it from sibling API key tools like create_api_key, revoke_api_key, and get_self_api_key.

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 explicit prerequisite context ('needs a Proof account') and gives concrete steps for authentication via PROOF_API_KEY or start_login. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_self_api_key or get_api_key_usage, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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