List Scaleway API Keys

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

Beyond annotations which already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, the description explicitly states that the secret_key is never included in the list and is only visible at creation. This is critical for an agent to understand the tool's output limitations and avoid expecting secrets.

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 that front-load the core action and immediately deliver the most important behavioral note (secret key visibility). No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers the essential use case. It could be slightly improved by mentioning whether pagination is used, but the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint mitigate this. The description is adequate for a list 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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter (application_id) with 100% coverage. The tool description only restates the optional filter, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the burden.

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 states exactly what the tool does: list API keys in the organization. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_users or list_policies by specifying the resource (API keys) and scope (Organization). The parenthetical about the secret key adds unique behavioral context.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to list API keys) and the optional filtering by application. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the purpose is self-explanatory given the sibling tool names (e.g., list_applications, list_users). A slight improvement would be to mention that for deeper filtering or search, other tools exist.

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