api_keys_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions what the tool returns ('Shows active, missing, and high-impact services'), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly explain the tool's function. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys the key information.

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 adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or integration context. For a simple read operation, it's passable but could be more informative.

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%. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get summary of all API keys status from the configuration sheet.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('API keys status'), and source ('configuration sheet'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_keys_missing' or 'api_keys_ready', which appear to be related API key tools.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over sibling tools like 'api_keys_missing' or 'api_keys_ready', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied but not explicit.

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