api_tokens_scopes_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, which is a behavioral trait. But it doesn't disclose any additional details like whether the list is exhaustive, sorted, or includes deprecated scopes. For a simple listing tool, minimal behavioral disclosure may be acceptable, but it provides no extra context beyond what 'List' implies.

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 a single, complete sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter list operation.

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 list tool, the description is essentially complete. The agent knows what the tool does and can call it without any additional input. The lack of output schema is not a major gap since the description implies a list of scopes. It could mention the return format, but for this simple case it is not critical.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). The description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no parameter complexity exists, and the description is sufficient.

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 clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('all valid API token scopes'), which distinguishes it from other api_tokens_* siblings (list all tokens vs. list scopes). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with api_tokens_list, so some ambiguity remains for an agent choosing between them.

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 does not provide when-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives. However, the context of listing scopes implies it should be used when an agent needs the set of valid scopes for creating or validating tokens, not when listing tokens themselves. This is implied but not stated, so it's not as strong as an explicit directive.

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