duo_get_desktop_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when the desktoptoken_id does not exist, whether 'full detail' includes nested fields, or any error/permission behavior. The term 'get' implies a read, but nothing about side effects or guarantees is disclosed.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and communicates the essential identifying parameter immediately.

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?

Adequate for a simple single-parameter get-by-id tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The essentials are covered, but with no annotations, it could usefully disclose the read-only nature and return expectations to be fully complete. Not seriously deficient, but leaves room.

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%, so the schema already documents desktoptokenId fully. The description echoes 'by desktoptoken_id' but adds no new syntax, format, or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Get full detail for a single Duo Desktop token by desktoptoken_id') that clearly distinguishes it from the sibling duo_list_desktop_tokens, which lists tokens rather than fetching one. An agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 intent is implied: use this when you have a specific desktoptoken_id and need full detail on a single token. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are given, nor any mention of when duo_list_desktop_tokens would be preferable. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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