duo_list_desktop_tokens

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

The verb 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the parenthetical 'platform, name, status' previews the returned fields. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not disclose pagination behavior, scope (e.g., org-wide vs. user-scoped), or response details beyond the field names.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and key output fields with no filler. It is compact and every word contributes 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 definition is adequate for a simple listing tool with pagination parameters already documented in the schema. It is somewhat incomplete because it does not clarify whether this returns all desktop tokens organization-wide or only tokens associated with a specific context, nor does it mention the pagination behavior explicitly.

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?

Both parameters (limit, offset) are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 action ('List') and resource ('Duo Desktop tokens') and adds the returned fields in parentheses, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like duo_list_user_tokens or duo_list_hardware_tokens, though the resource name itself differentiates 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duo_get_desktop_token, duo_list_user_tokens, or duo_list_hardware_tokens. The description only states what it lists and leaves the selection context entirely implicit.

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