api_keys_list

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 discloses a meaningful behavioral detail: the raw token value is never returned, only tokenPrefix for identification. This is genuinely useful transparency for a tool returning tokens, since the agent would otherwise expect full credentials. It also notes both active and revoked are returned, which affects how the agent interprets results.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Every clause carries information: the scope, the token statuses, the sort order, and the security detail about tokenPrefix. 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is strong. It covers scope, content, ordering, and a critical behavioral detail (no raw token values). It could note whether pagination exists or clarify null behavior for empty results, but for this tool's complexity the current description is largely complete.

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 zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description compensates by describing the return characteristics (active and revoked tokens, sorted by creation date, tokenPrefix only). While it doesn't describe pagination or response structure, there being zero params means the baseline is 4 and the description adds value about what's returned.

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 verb (list), the resource (API tokens), the scope (authenticated user within current organization), and specifies both active and revoked tokens included. It also notes the sort order (newest first). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like api_keys_scopes and anaf_tokens by being specific about returning both token statuses.

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 explains what tokens are included (both active and revoked) and how they're sorted, which helps the agent know what to expect. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like api_keys_scopes, nor does it mention any prerequisites like authentication requirements. Clear in context but no explicit exclusions.

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