llmkit_list_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, idempotent operation. The description adds context about returned fields (status and creation date), which enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it 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?

For a tool with no parameters, a rich output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, leaving no gaps in understanding.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description is adequate given no parameters to document.

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 lists API keys with status and creation date. 'List' is a specific verb, and 'API keys' is a distinct resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'llmkit_budget_status' or 'llmkit_cost_query', which have different purposes.

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 a user needs to list API keys. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. Given the simple nature and clear sibling differentiation, it is adequate but lacks exclusionary advice.

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