Venice List API Keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the admin-only requirement, the auth-path exclusion (x402), and the partial-data return (last six characters only). It does not cover rate limits or pagination, but the security-relevant additions are valuable.

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 short sentences, each front-loading a distinct fact: what is returned, who can call it, and what auth path is excluded. No 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, read-only listing endpoint with no output schema, the description covers purpose, access control, and data-exposure scope. Return-shape details are absent, but the key operational constraints an agent needs are present.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The schema is empty and the description correctly notes no inputs are needed, while adding auth-context constraints that function as implicit prerequisites.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (API-key metadata) and immediately clarifies scope: only the last six characters, not full secrets. This distinguishes it from sibling venice_get_api_key and sets expectations precisely.

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?

Explicitly states the admin requirement and that inference keys cannot call the endpoint, plus that x402 wallet auth is not accepted. Clear conditions on when the tool is usable, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like venice_get_api_key or venice_api_key_rate_limits.

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