Contract Testing: Admin Get System Account Tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'admin' toolset context but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a toolset indicator and a parameter list. No unnecessary words; each element adds value.

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?

The description lacks details about the return value format (e.g., list of tokens) which is important since there is no output schema. It also omits usage guidance. Given the simplicity of the tool, a more complete description would include output description.

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 coverage is 100% with the accountId parameter described as 'UUID of the system account'. The description repeats this exactly, adding no new semantic information. Baseline 3 applies per high schema coverage.

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 action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('API tokens for a system account (admin)'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like contract-testing_list_api_tokens by specifying it is for a specific system account and includes 'admin' scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as contract-testing_list_api_tokens or other admin tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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