api_tokens_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, giving the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the authentication requirement (admin JWT only, not API-key), which is a real gate on invocation. It doesn't mention pagination or return shape, but the auth disclosure is substantive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action before the auth caveat. Efficient and readable, with only minor awkwardness in the quoting of "API-key".

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 zero-parameter read-only listing, the description covers purpose and the critical auth constraint. No output schema exists, but a list-returning endpoint needs little explanation of return shape; nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Get all API tokens'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like api_tokens_create, api_tokens_delete, and api_tokens_scopes. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the list semantics are unambiguous.

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?

It provides an explicit usage constraint: forbidden via API-key, must be used with an admin JWT-token. This tells the agent the conditions under which the call will succeed, though it doesn't name alternatives or say when to prefer a more filtered listing.

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