Unraid API apiKeys

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds security-relevant context beyond the annotations by explicitly stating that key material is not returned, which shapes agent expectations about the response contents.

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 a single well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the crucial security qualifier without unnecessary detail.

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 no-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is complete: it states what is returned (metadata and grants) and what is excluded (key material). Even without an output schema, an agent has enough information to call the tool and interpret results 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?

This tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters for the description to document. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is missing on the parameter side.

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 a clear resource ('API key metadata and grants'), and adds the important qualifier 'without returning key material.' This distinguishes it from the singular query_api_key tool and from any tool that would expose secrets.

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 clearly conveys when to use it: when the agent needs to enumerate API key metadata and grants rather than a single key or key material. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the plural scope and sibling naming make the intended use reasonably clear.

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