api_keys_missing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'lists' services, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify format (e.g., list, table, JSON), pagination, sorting, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple listing operation. However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or dependencies, which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively. It meets the bare minimum but doesn't provide rich context.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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') and target ('services that are still missing API keys'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_keys_ready' or 'api_keys_summary', but the specificity of 'missing API keys' provides inherent distinction. This is not a tautology of the tool name 'api_keys_missing'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'api_keys_ready' (which might list services with keys) or 'api_keys_summary' (which could provide aggregated stats). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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