list_app_keys

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states what is shown (key names, scopes, creation dates) but omits important details like whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or if it lists only active keys. The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it omits critical information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise. A bit more detail could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should cover pagination, filtering, sorting, and return structure. It mentions the fields returned but misses pagination details and parameter usage. Incomplete for a list tool of moderate complexity.

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 4 parameters (page_size, page_number, sort, filter_name) with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no guidance on their meaning or usage. The agent receives no help on how to correctly invoke the parameters.

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 lists application keys for the current user, specifying the resource (application keys) and scope (current user). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_api_keys', which could cause confusion.

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 vs alternatives, such as when to use list_app_keys over list_api_keys or search tools. There are no exclusions or best practices mentioned.

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