api_tokens_get_api_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the authentication requirement (admin JWT only, API-key forbidden), which is real behavioral context. It does not describe the return shape, ordering, or whether secrets/token values are masked, leaving some gaps for a zero-param read endpoint.

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 useful content (verb, resource, auth constraint) is front-loaded, but the raw OpenAPI dump includes a redundant path line and a trailing 'Tags: API Tokens Controller' that adds no decision-relevant value.

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 zero-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the key gotcha — the admin-only JWT auth requirement — is disclosed. Nothing critical is missing, though pagination/return details are absent.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed.

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 (GET) and resource (all API tokens), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is distinguishable from siblings like api_tokens_create_api_token and api_tokens_delete_api_token by the 'Get all' phrasing, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

The description gives a hard usage constraint — it cannot be used with an API-key and requires an admin JWT-token — which is genuine context for selecting/invoking the tool. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as api_tokens_get_scopes.

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