list_api_keys

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real value: it specifies that secret key values are NOT returned, and it discloses the auth/enablement prerequisite (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY env or start_login flow). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it doesn't cover ordering/pagination.

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?

Purpose and return scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the ACCESS block is set off clearly. The access instructions are somewhat verbose relative to the tool's simplicity, but every part is actionable.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return scope (metadata only), and auth requirements. It does not describe the shape of the returned list, but the key exclusion of secret values is the main thing an agent needs.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate or document.

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 ("List all API keys for the authenticated account") and clarifies the returned scope (metadata, not secret values). This distinguishes it from the singular get_self_api_key by implication, but it never names a sibling or scopes against get_api_key_usage, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides a genuine prerequisite section (needs a Proof account; set PROOF_API_KEY or sign in via start_login). However, it gives no guidance on when to call this versus create_api_key, revoke_api_key, regenerate_api_key, or get_api_key_usage — the reader must infer that from the verb.

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