list_server_api_keys

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description confirms the read operation and adds the server-scoping constraint, but says nothing about pagination, sorting, or auth requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and scope appear immediately and the endpoint reference is short and useful.

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 simple read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is adequate. It could optionally clarify the difference from list_api_keys, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (server_id), so the schema already documents it. The description's mention of 'a specific server' only restates the parameter's purpose and adds no format or syntax detail beyond 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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('API keys') plus the scope ('issued for a specific server'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the broader list_api_keys and the single-item get_api_key. The parenthetical endpoint (api_keys/list_for_server) reinforces exactly what operation is performed.

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 phrase 'for a specific server' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., list_api_keys for all keys vs. this tool for server-scoped keys). Usage is inferable but left implicit.

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