Api iam auth tokens retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are user-scoped, but says nothing about what a token record contains, whether secrets are masked, or emptiness of the result set — relevant for a credential-listing 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?

A single short sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler.

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 no-arg read with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. But with no output schema, the description could reasonably have noted the shape of a returned token (or that values are redacted), which mutes its usefulness for a credential-sensitive listing.

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 and there is nothing in the schema that the description needs to compensate for.

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 ('personal access tokens') and scopes it to 'the user'. An agent can distinguish it from sibling iam_auth_tokens_create/destroy by the retrieval semantics, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'for the user' implies it returns only the authenticated caller's tokens and needs no identifier, which is useful scoping. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (must be logged in), and no routing guidance versus the create/destroy siblings.

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