list_api_keys

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds key behavioral disclosures: 'Never returns raw secret material,' 'not separately rate-limited,' and a precise list of returned fields. This significantly informs the agent about security and response contents beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying unique value: purpose/scope, secret handling, read-only/rate-limit, sibling routing, and return fields. No redundancy or filler; front-loaded with the action.

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 read-only list operation, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it lists, its safety profile, rate limiting, how to mutate keys, and the exact output shape. No output schema exists, so the return-field list is essential and 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?

With zero parameters, the input schema already fully documents the interface (empty object). The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics and doesn't attempt to.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('active API keys'), and scope ('current organization'). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming create_api_key and revoke_api_key as alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use create_api_key to mint one and revoke_api_key to retire one,' and frames this tool as read-only, non-destructive, and not separately rate-limited. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over its mutating counterparts.

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