kaiten_list_api_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the listing action and adds no details about return format, pagination, authentication needs, or whether sensitive key values are included.

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 concise sentence that puts the verb and resource first, with no redundant wording. It earns its place efficiently for a zero-parameter tool.

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 operation, the description conveys the essential purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, it leaves unspecified what fields each API key contains and whether the result is paginated or includes secret values.

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 the schema description coverage is reported as 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The phrase 'all API keys' reinforces that no filtering or arguments are needed.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('API keys'), and the scope ('for the current user'), making the operation unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kaiten_create_api_key and kaiten_delete_api_key by the action while sharing the same resource.

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 scope 'for the current user' implies when this tool is relevant, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. For a simple list operation this is acceptable, but the description leaves all usage routing to inference.

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