list_configured_api_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly guarantees that actual key values are not exposed, which is a critical safety behavior. It also clarifies the output scope (labels, types, org-key status). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read-only list operation this is adequate.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence gives the core action and resource; the second adds usage context; the third clarifies privacy and output fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers purpose, scope, and a critical privacy guarantee. No missing information would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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 baseline of 4 applies. The description adds meaningful context about what the returned data represents without needing to explain any parameters.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'configured API keys' and states it returns labels and types. It explicitly notes it does not expose actual key values, which distinguishes its purpose from any potential key-manipulation tools. Among siblings, no other tool targets API keys, so it stands alone clearly.

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 states a clear context ('Shows which API keys are available for MSP multi-console queries'), telling the agent when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it, but given the unique resource and simple read-only nature, the usage context is sufficient.

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