List API keys

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: Wiki.js stores only truncated keys, never returns the secret, and therefore the output cannot be used to authenticate. This is a non-obvious limitation that prevents an agent from mistakenly treating the listed keys as usable credentials.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and output fields, the second adds a crucial security caveat. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list operation, the description covers the key returned dimensions and the critical secret-handling limitation. It does not specify pagination or sorting, but these are minor omissions for such a simple 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is required. The description correctly focuses on output semantics rather than inputs; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool 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 opens with 'Lists the wiki’s API keys', giving a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the returned attributes: expiry, revoked status, and whether API access is enabled. This clearly differentiates it from mutation siblings like revoke_api_key and set_api_state.

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 makes the listing purpose obvious but never states explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. An agent can infer this is the read-only inspection tool, but the definition does not call out siblings such as revoke_api_key or set_api_state as the appropriate choice for other intents.

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