jumpcloud_user_token_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly labels itself 'read-only' and warns 'Do not use to rotate/update secrets,' which accurately conveys its non-mutating nature. However, it does not explain what 'Risk: medium' entails or the implications of the 'includeSensitive' parameter, which leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence is functional: purpose, usage, and explicit non-usage. No filler or redundancy, making it an ideal concise structure.

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?

Given the tool is a simple read-only list with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and caution. However, the lack of any parameter semantics and the vague 'Risk: medium' leave gaps for correct invocation. It's adequate but not complete, hence a mid-level score.

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%, yet the description does not explain any parameter (userId, tenantId, includeSensitive). It only vaguely mentions 'user-scoped' which maps to userId, but provides no guidance on values, defaults, or the sensitive parameter. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Read-only token metadata listing' with the specific purpose of inspecting user-scoped token entries and active token selection. It also explicitly contrasts with sibling operations by stating 'Do not use to rotate/update secrets,' which differentiates it from mutation tools like upsert/delete.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use to inspect user-scoped token entries and active token selection' and an explicit exclusion: 'Do not use to rotate/update secrets.' This tells the agent when to select this tool versus mutation tools, fulfilling the highest bar for this dimension.

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