List API keys

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a real operational constraint: the calling key must hold the 'Can create API keys' permission or OneGuard returns a 403. That is exactly the kind of prerequisite an agent cannot get from the annotations. It stops short of mentioning pagination, ordering, or whether revoked keys are included in the listing.

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, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads what is returned; the second carries the single prerequisite an agent needs before calling. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or the empty schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by naming the five fields per key plus the authorization failure mode. The only meaningful gaps are pagination behavior and whether the listing includes revoked or expired keys, which matter for an org-scale key list.

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; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on the shape of the response entries, which is the only semantic surface available here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists the organization API keys') and enumerates what each entry contains: permission, status, expiry, capabilities and vault scope. It is unambiguously distinct from the mutating siblings oneguard_keys_create, oneguard_keys_update and oneguard_keys_revoke, though it never names those siblings explicitly to route the agent.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the read path for inspecting existing keys versus creating or revoking them. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no pointer to sibling tools such as oneguard_keys_create for the write path, so the guidance is adequate but thin.

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