b2_list_keys

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explicitly stating that key secrets are not returned and exactly which fields are included (IDs, names, capabilities, restrictions). This goes beyond the schema and informs the agent about data sensitivity.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the important caveat about key secrets is placed immediately after, giving the agent the most decision-relevant information efficiently.

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 straightforward list tool with no required parameters, the description covers the key details: what is listed, what is returned, and what is deliberately excluded. Pagination mechanics are handled by the schema's parameter descriptions, so nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both maxKeyCount and startApplicationKeyId fully described in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics for correct invocation.

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 ('List') and resource ('application keys associated with the B2 account'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like b2_create_key and b2_delete_key by focusing on listing rather than mutation.

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 description clearly identifies this as a listing operation for application keys, which gives the agent enough context to select it over creation or deletion siblings. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X', but the read-only listing intent and the security-focused caveat provide clear situational context.

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