List API keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: self-scoping of results, the exact fields returned, and the 403 apiKeyForbidden/api_keys_cannot_manage_api_keys behavior that forecloses write attempts.

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-loads the essential fact (returns only the calling key) before the field enumeration. The long comma-separated field list is dense but each entry carries information; the trailing read-only note is mildly redundant with the annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (scope, granular scopes, spend limits, IPs, expiry, rate_limit, permission_options) and the self-scoping constraint. Complete enough for an agent to call and interpret it without gaps.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain inputs and correctly focuses on output contents instead.

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 and immediately corrects the misleading name: it returns only the key this request authenticated with, not all account keys. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling get_api_key and from any expectation of an account-wide key listing.

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?

Explains the backend scoping rule (apiKeyScopedToSelf, other keys never listed) and that key management must be done in the VPSnet panel instead. It doesn't name a sibling alternative explicitly, but the scope constraint effectively tells the agent when this tool is and isn't the right call.

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