List migration tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'active' filter (only active tokens are returned) which is useful and consistent with annotations. No mention of pagination behavior, which the cursor/limit params imply but is not disclosed.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste. Efficient and to the point. The term 'active' is the only substantive word beyond the basic resource+verb, but it adds meaningful scope.

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 list tool with readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations, this is adequate: reads are low-risk. However, with pagination parameters present (limit, cursor) and no output schema, the description could note that results are paginated/ordered. Given 3 params and simple semantics, this is reasonably complete but leaves pagination behavior implicit.

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 only 33% (only project_id has a description). The description mentions 'for a project' which maps to project_id, but adds nothing about limit or cursor (pagination). However, the meaning of list-style limit/cursor params is fairly standard and inferable from their names.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List active migration tokens for a project.' It specifies the action (list) and resource (migration tokens), and scopes to 'active' tokens and 'a project'. It distinguishes reasonably from sibling mint_migration_token and revoke_migration_token (those are create/delete verbs), though list_personal_tokens and list_api_keys are similarly-named siblings that lack explicit differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_personal_tokens or list_api_keys. The description merely states the action without context about when a migration token listing is appropriate, prerequisites beyond project_id, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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