list_api_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical security behavior: 'Does NOT show raw tokens.' It also explains the default behavior and the effect of the detail parameter. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or permissions, but for a simple list tool, the key behavioral aspects are covered.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, key output fields/security note, and parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the main function and contains 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, the fields returned, the security caveat about raw tokens, and the detail parameter behavior. The only minor gap is that it does not state whether results are paginated or limited, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides a thorough description of the 'detail' parameter, including enum values, defaults, and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely restates the default ('Lists default short') and the effect of medium/full, adding no new information beyond the schema. Hence, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List all API keys on the account.' It specifies a precise verb ('List'), a resource ('API keys'), and scope ('all on the account'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_api_key and revoke_api_key. It also mentions the fields shown (prefix, scope, revocation status), adding clarity.

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 provides explicit guidance on how to adjust verbosity: 'Lists default short; pass detail=medium/full for more fields.' It implies that this tool is for listing/auditing keys, while create/revoke are for other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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