rca_auth_list_keys

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing that the tool 'Never returns raw or hashed key material' and that it requires admin role. Annotations already indicate safety; the description gives specifics.

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 concise with three sentences. It front-loads the main action and includes only essential information: what it does, security constraints, and return format. No extraneous text.

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 (list keys), the description is complete. It specifies the return type as a JSON string with fields (key_id, label, plan_at_issue, created_at, last_used_at, is_active), mentions requirements, and discloses what it does not return. No 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?

The input schema has two parameters: token (with description 'API key (admin role required)') and client_id (with description 'Client Id', default 'default'). The description does not add any additional meaning or clarify these parameters beyond what the schema provides. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fails to compensate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'List your own API keys and their metadata.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('API keys') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rca_auth_rotate_key and rca_auth_revoke_token.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Admin role required (Enterprise plan).' It implicitly suggests not to use it for key management tasks. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the condition and the sibling tool list make the usage clear.

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