list_api_keys

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

The description discloses basic behavior (lists all keys, returns metadata but not secrets) and implies idempotence/read-only. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. It is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and an args line. It front-loads the primary action and return value. No redundant words, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, list operation, output schema present), the description covers the return value and basic function. It omits details like pagination and error handling, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool. Lacks parameter context.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only repeats 'project_id' as 'Project ID' without explaining its format, source, or how to obtain it. This adds little value beyond the schema field name.

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 that the tool lists all API keys for a project and returns metadata but not secret values. The verb 'list' and resource 'API keys' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'create_api_key' and 'delete_api_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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context-specific scenarios. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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