qui_list_client_api_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's mention of GET aligns with that. However, no additional behavioral context is provided, such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. Beyond the read-only hint, the description adds nothing.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the endpoint and clearly communicates the argument-passing convention. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 simple list operation with an output schema present, the description provides the core invocation details. However, it lacks endpoint-specific parameter information and does not distinguish this tool from the very similar qui_list_api_keys, leaving some ambiguity in selection and 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 input schema is extremely generic (only an 'arguments' object with no property descriptions), leaving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by explaining how to pass path variables, query values, and body via arguments, which is useful structural guidance. However, it does not specify any concrete parameters or query options for this particular endpoint.

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 specifies the exact HTTP method and endpoint (GET /client-api-keys/), which clearly indicates the tool lists client API keys. It is differentiated from sibling tools like qui_list_api_keys by the resource path, though not explicitly stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as qui_list_api_keys or qui_create_client_api_key. It only explains how to structure arguments, not under what circumstances the tool is appropriate.

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