list_api_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important trait: only id, name, and prefix are returned, never the full secret. That is a useful security-relevant guarantee about the response. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or permission requirements for listing account keys.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action and resource come first, and the parenthetical clarification is placed immediately after the noun it qualifies.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is listed, whose keys, and what fields come back. Only pagination and result-set size behavior are left unaddressed, which is minor for this tool's complexity.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical instead usefully clarifies the shape of the returned fields.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List API key metadata") and scopes it to the account, which cleanly separates it from create_api_key, delete_api_key, and regenerate_api_key. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than spelled out.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for inspecting existing keys while the sibling tools mutate them. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion such as when to prefer get_usage instead.

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