ncloud_list_sub_account_access_keys

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the exact output fields (active state and creation time) and the non-obvious fact that secret keys are never exposed in the list response, which is critical for an agent deciding whether this tool can satisfy a 'get secret key' request.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose and return fields in the first sentence and the critical secrecy caveat in the second. Every clause adds value; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential usage context: the resource, the returned fields, and the secret-key exclusion. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating the response shape (e.g., an array of key objects) or any pagination behavior, but these are minor given the low 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% because the only parameter, subAccountId, has a descriptive schema entry referencing ncloud_list_sub_accounts. The description itself does not add additional parameter-level details, but the schema already provides adequate meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('API access keys of a sub account'), and specifies the returned attributes ('active state and creation time'). It also distinguishes itself from the closely related ncloud_create_sub_account_access_key by explicitly stating that secret keys are never returned here.

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 clearly states what the tool does and provides an explicit when-not: if a secret key is needed, this tool will not return it, and points to the ncloud_create_sub_account_access_key response as the only place a secret key appears. This gives an agent enough context to choose between listing keys and creating or fetching a secret key.

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