Contract Testing: List API Tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'current user' scope but says nothing about response format, token masking, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. It is not misleading, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The 'Toolset' line is low-value, and the parameter list duplicates the schema, but the overall length is acceptable and there is no verbose filler.

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 simple read-only list operation with two optional pagination params and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not hint at the response shape (e.g., token metadata, masking, pagination totals), leaving the agent to guess about the returned payload.

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 100% — both pageNumber and pageSize have descriptions and defaults in the schema. The description merely repeats this information without adding semantics like range limits, indexing style, or maximum page size, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve API tokens for the current user.' This clearly differentiates the tool from token creation/regeneration and from admin/system-account token listing by scoping to the current user. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is a meaningful differentiator.

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 when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. The description does not mention that this lists only the user's own tokens, nor does it contrast with related tools like contract-testing_admin_get_system_account_tokens or contract-testing_regenerate_api_token. An agent must infer usage from the name and the 'current user' scope.

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