list_api_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return contents (id, name, status, prefix, suffix, rate limit, statistics), which is especially useful given no output schema. It does not contradict the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence: the verb and scope come first, followed by the return field list. Every phrase adds information, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 simple, parameterless, read-only listing tool, the description provides the tenant scope and return fields, and annotations cover the behavioral safety profile. A minor gap is the absence of pagination or response shape details, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. The description reinforces the no-argument, tenant-wide listing behavior and describes what is returned, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lista todas as API Keys do tenant', clearly identifying the listing operation and tenant scope. It also enumerates the returned fields, which helps distinguish it from get_api_key, create_api_key, update_api_key, and delete_api_key.

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 intended use as a tenant-wide listing is implied by 'todas as API Keys do tenant' and the tool name, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over get_api_key or any mention of pagination/filtering conditions. The usage context is clear but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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