mailkite_list_scoped_keys

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: scoped keys are isolated to one domain, and a management session token is required. It does not describe the response shape, but the annotation covers the safety profile.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core action and resource. The second sentence earns its place by explaining the security model and practical use case, and the third provides the required auth context. No filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, and authentication requirements. It does not detail what fields the listing returns, but with no params, a simple list operation, and no output schema, this is a minor rather than blocking gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is already complete and the description has nothing to add. The description's mention of account scope and session token is auth context rather than parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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'), the resource ('account's domain-scoped API keys'), and the scope ('account's'). It also explains what a scoped key is, which distinguishes this tool from sibling credential-listing tools like list_app_passwords and get_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?

The description gives clear usage context: list scoped keys when you need per-domain credentials to hand to sites or CI jobs, and it notes the management session token requirement. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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