list_access_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation (listing) and mentions the return type, but does not elaborate on side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements, which are not critical for this simple list tool.

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 a concise docstring—just a one-line purpose followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 params, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers core functionality well. It would benefit from mentioning pagination or result limits, but for a straightforward list operation, it is largely complete.

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 description adds meaning for all four parameters beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). It explains that key_type is optional, sort defaults to 'name', and order defaults to 'asc', providing useful context not present in the schema.

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 'List all access keys for a project', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_access_key' (singular) or 'create_access_key', though the plural 'list' implies a collection operation.

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 (e.g., get_access_key for a single key). It also lacks context for using optional filters like key_type or sort, leaving the agent to infer their relevance.

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