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 of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that only prefix and status are returned and that the full key is never shown again, which is important non-obvious behavior. It does not cover pagination or status values, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is acceptable.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and immediately followed by the most important caveat. Every part earns its place; no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description tells an agent what the call returns (prefix and status) and warns that the full key is unavailable. It is sufficient for correct invocation and reasonable expectation-setting, though it could optionally mention whether revoked keys are included.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List API keys on this account.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from create_api_key and revoke_api_key, and the account-scope phrasing separates it from other list tools like list_domains or list_mailboxes.

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 phrase 'on this account' gives clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only listing semantics are obvious enough for an agent to know this is the right tool for viewing API keys.

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