actions_mcptoken

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does state what is returned (action names and descriptions), which is meaningful since no output schema exists, but it never says this is a read-only/no-side-effect operation, nor does it mention pagination or auth requirements.

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?

A single tightly-written sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the follow-up tool named second. No filler or 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?

For a zero-parameter discovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both what it does and what it returns, which is the essential information. It falls short only on stating that the call is safe/read-only and how the returned action names map onto action_mcptoken inputs.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies; there is no parameter behavior the description could add.

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 (available admin actions for MCP Token), and explicitly names the sibling 'action_mcptoken' as the consumer of what it returns. An agent can immediately distinguish this discovery tool from the execution tool without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'can be executed via action_mcptoken' establishes the workflow context: call this to discover action names, then invoke action_mcptoken with them. It's clear implied usage with the follow-up tool named, but there is no explicit when-not or exclusion guidance.

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