list_token_scopes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly and mentions auto-detection of IdP, but it does not detail return format, error handling, or constraints like token validity. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core purpose (list scopes/roles/permissions) and a secondary feature (auto-detect IdP). Every word is informative 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's function and a key differentiator (IdP detection). However, additional context about output structure or sibling tool differentiation would enhance completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the token parameter, but the description does not add new information beyond stating it is a JWT token. The parameter meaning is somewhat inferred from the tool purpose, but no format or requirement details are provided. Minimal added value.

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 that the tool lists all scopes, roles, and permissions from a JWT token, with the additional feature of auto-detecting the identity provider. This specific verb-resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_jwt or validate_jwt.

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 implies usage for inspecting JWT tokens, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., decode_jwt, validate_jwt) or mention prerequisites or limitations. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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