list_api_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it only repeats the tool's name. It does not state that listing is read-only, what the response format is, or whether pagination or filtering options exist. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is not padded, but it could be more informative without losing efficiency. Still, it earns a high score for brevity.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should compensate with parameter explanations and expected behavior. It does not, leaving the tool incomplete for real-world invocation. The sparse description is insufficient for a tool with even minimal complexity.

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 schema has two parameters with no descriptions, and the description does not mention them at all (0% schema coverage). The agent cannot infer the meaning of project_id or active_only from the tool description, making parameter usage ambiguous.

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 action ('List') and resource ('API keys'), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_api_key, rotate_api_key, and delete_api_key. However, it does not clarify scope (e.g., whether it lists keys for all projects or a specific project), which would be more informative.

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, such as get_api_key or list_projects. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool.

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