wafle_auth_keys_list

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context: 'Full secrets are NEVER returned,' 'tenant clients cannot enumerate,' and the conditional store filter ('if the upstream key supports it'). These disclose permission boundaries and output limitations not captured by 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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the primary purpose, the second explains return format and a key safety guarantee, and the third gives an access restriction. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (prefix + scopes) and that secrets are never returned. It also covers access restrictions and the optional store filter behavior. For a simple one-parameter read tool, this is 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 schema already documents store_slug with 100% coverage ('Optional: filter to keys scoped to this store'). The description adds the caveat 'if the upstream key supports it,' explaining that store filtering may not always be available. This is meaningful extra context beyond the schema, raising the score above the baseline 3.

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 verb and resource: 'List API keys associated with the master account' with an optional store filter. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying the return of prefix+scopes and prohibiting full secrets, making it distinct from key creation or auth info tools.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use to audit who has access.' It also states an explicit exclusion: 'Admin-only: tenant clients cannot enumerate API keys.' However, it does not name alternative tools for when this tool should not be used, so it falls short of a 5.

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