sendcraft_list_api_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that keys are masked and never the full value, which is a critical safety-related behavior, and also discloses the information fields returned. It stops short of mentioning pagination, ordering, or any potential errors, but for a simple list tool, the given details are valuable and non-obvious.

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, compact sentence of about 17 words. It front-loads the main action ('List API keys'), then adds the most important behavioral note (masking) and the return fields. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials: what it does, the scope, and what the response includes. It could go further by noting the response structure (e.g., a list/array) or any authentication requirements, but the core information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly is present. Slight gap in not mentioning how many API keys or whether the list is paginated, but this is acceptable for a simple resource 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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to add about parameter semantics. The description instead clarifies what the output contains, which supports parameter understanding indirectly. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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: 'List API keys for the account.' It uses a specific verb (list), identifies the resource (API keys), and scopes it to the account. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_emails or list_campaigns, and even previews the response contents.

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 implies usage when you need to view API keys for the account, and the mention of 'masked keys, permissions scope, and last-used date' gives context on what you can learn from it. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name any alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer based on the resource type.

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