api_tokens_scopes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the authentication constraint (admin JWT only, not API-key) and the shape of what is returned (scopes grouped by resource).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return shape and the auth restriction. No filler or redundancy.

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, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, how it's organized, and the caller authentication required to invoke it.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly signals a parameterless catalog read.

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 and resource ('Get available API token scopes') and clarifies the return content ('catalog of scopes that can be granted to an API token, grouped by resource'). This clearly separates it from siblings like api_tokens_list/create/delete, which operate on tokens rather than the scope catalog.

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?

Provides the key selection context that this is the read path for discovering grantable scopes (implicitly feeding api_tokens_create), and explicitly states the access constraint 'Forbidden via API-key, admin JWT only.' It does not name a sibling alternative outright, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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