api_tokens_get_scopes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: the endpoint is forbidden to API-key auth and requires an admin JWT. It also states the response is a catalog grouped by resource. It stops short of error semantics or rate limits, but the auth model is the critical disclosure here.

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 payload is short, but the leading 'GET /api/tokens/scopes' line merely restates the tool name and the trailing 'Tags: API Tokens Controller' is generator noise. The substantive sentence ('Returns the catalog of scopes...') is the only one that earns its place, and it sits third rather than first.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return (scope catalog grouped by resource) and the auth prerequisite. For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to complete, though error behavior for unauthorized callers is unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or misstates the schema.

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+resource: retrieves the catalog of API token scopes, grouped by resource. This is clearly distinguishable from its siblings (create/delete/list tokens), which all operate on token instances rather than the scope catalog.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative, but the description implies its role (discovering what scopes a token can be granted) and supplies the operative access condition: 'Forbidden via "API-key", admin JWT only.' That condition is useful selection context even without a comparative statement.

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