Danh sách API key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it discloses that only prefix and status are surfaced and that the secret is never returned, which an agent needs to know before deciding whether this tool answers its question.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the key constraint about the secret. The Vietnamese and English halves are essentially duplicates, which is mild padding, but the total length remains small and each half carries the operational constraint.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the fields returned, and the security-relevant omission of secrets. That is close to sufficient; only the absence of any mention of ordering, pagination, or empty-state behavior keeps it from being fully complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the returned fields (prefix, status) rather than inventing parameter detail, leaving nothing to mis-specify.

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 a specific verb and resource ('inspect existing API key metadata', 'đọc prefix và trạng thái'), which is clearly a read/list operation on API keys. It distinguishes implicitly from the sibling write tools (mail_api_key_create, mail_api_key_revoke) by saying 'existing', though it never names them.

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?

It gives a use context ('Khi kiểm tra key của app' / 'Use to inspect existing API key metadata'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance and does not route the agent to alternatives like mail_api_key_create when no key exists yet.

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