Api keys: list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'current user' scoping constraint, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether key secrets are redacted, which are the behaviors an agent would actually wonder about here.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The one open question it leaves is what a listed key object contains (notably whether the secret value is included), which for API-key tooling is material but not essential to 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter syntax the description needs to compensate for. Nothing in the description is required to clarify inputs.

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 (list) and resource (API keys) plus the scope qualifier 'for the current user', so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like api_keys_create and api_keys_revoke by verb alone, but never names them or explicitly rules out listing other users' keys.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and scope; there is no statement of when to call this versus api_keys_create or api_keys_revoke, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The self-evident read operation keeps it from scoring lower, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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