marrow_list_keys

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'Keys are masked here by design,' which informs the agent that the response will not contain plaintext key values. The 'List' verb also implies a read-only operation, though this is not explicitly stated.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that conveys both the core function and a critical behavioral note. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. It states the action, the resource, and a key behavioral trait (masking). However, it does not describe the return structure or any potential limitations (e.g., pagination), which could be useful without an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, meaning there is no parameter ambiguity. Thus, the description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the schema is perfectly clear by being empty.

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 a specific verb 'List' and resource 'API keys', which precisely identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes from sibling key-related tools like get_key, create_key, rotate_key, and revoke_key by focusing on enumeration rather than retrieval, creation, rotation, or revocation.

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. While the sibling tool names suggest a set of key management operations, the description itself does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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