manage_api_keys_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real operator context: it declares the auth requirement (Master API Key or global admin key) and explains the three-way filtering semantics, which are not in the schema. It does not discuss pagination or default exclusion of revoked keys in prose, but an output schema exists to cover return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then a bolded authorization prerequisite, then a compact bulleted breakdown of filtering modes. Every line carries new information — no filler.

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 two-parameter list tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs: auth prerequisite, filtering semantics, and the wildcard edge case. The only minor gap is the absence of any note on result ordering or volume limits.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by defining the undocumented wildcard case project_id="*" (global keys only) and restating the null default, information the schema default note does not convey. It adds little for include_revoked beyond what the schema property describes.

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 API keys") plus the query scope ("optional filtering"). It implicitly distinguishes the list operation from siblings like manage_api_keys_get_info, create, revoke, and rotate, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives clear context for use — it enumerates exactly what each project_id value returns, which is the main semantic choice a caller faces. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use it versus get_info (single-key lookup), so it stops short of a full when/when-not pairing.

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