list_delivery_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that the operation is 'Admin only' and warns that 'Secrets are never shown again after creation,' which is important for an agent to understand the scope and security limitations of this read operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core action and resource, then appends the returned fields and important caveats. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It lists the fields returned (id, name, type, timestamps), notes the admin-only requirement, and explains that secrets are not retrievable, covering what an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, and the single 'site' parameter already has a detailed schema description covering multisite behavior, defaults, and a pointer to list_sites. The description adds no additional syntax or semantics for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('this site's Delivery API keys'), then explains what those keys are: 'the credentials a website uses to read content.' It also enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, timestamps), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and easy to distinguish from sibling delivery-key tools like create_delivery_key or revoke_delivery_key.

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 one clear usage constraint ('Admin only') and hints that secrets are not retrievable after creation, which implies this tool is for reviewing existing keys rather than creating them. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_delivery_key, rename_delivery_key, or revoke_delivery_key, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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