List your API key pool

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that it returns pooled keys plus read-only legacyKeys metadata and 'never the raw secret.' This adds meaningful behavioral context about data safety and return composition, exceeding what annotations alone communicate.

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 information-dense but not overly long. It front-loads the action, then details the return structure and gives usage guidance. The redundant 'Read-only.' sentence is minor but acceptable, leading to a slight deduction.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return shape and semantics. It thoroughly covers pooled keys, legacyKeys, provider grouping, and key statuses, making it fully useful for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter (projectId, described as 'Project id'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 BYOK API keys grouped by provider, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('project's BYOK API keys'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_byok_key and remove_byok_key by focusing on listing/inspection.

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 explicitly says 'Use to see which keys are validated, active, pending, legacy, or rate-limited' and provides an alternative: 'use add_byok_key to add one.' This gives clear when-to-use context and directs to a sibling tool for a different operation.

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