List API token metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing further — no mention of pagination behavior, ordering, whether secret values are excluded from the metadata, or rate limits. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds zero behavioral context.

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 single-line description is free of waste and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise — there is only one sentence and it merely echoes the title. A slightly longer description could have carried usage and pagination context at minimal cost.

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, no parameter descriptions, and a mutation-free listing contract, the description should explain what metadata fields come back and how to page. Neither is present, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape or pagination loop for a two-parameter list tool.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters: 'limit' and 'cursor' have types, defaults, and bounds but no prose explaining what they mean or how paging works. Because coverage is low, the description carries the burden of compensating, and it says nothing about page size semantics or cursor round-tripping.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus api_token_get, oauth_grants_list, or any other sibling. An agent must infer that this is the collection-level counterpart to the single-token getter, and nothing states whether listing is paginated or scoped.

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