duo_list_hardware_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses an important safety guarantee, 'Never returns a seed/secret', and the verb 'List' signals a read-only operation; this is more transparent than a bare list endpoint description.

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 one concise sentence, front-loads the operation and resource, and earns its place with both filter guidance and a critical caveat. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers resource scope, filtering, token categories, and a security guarantee, which is sufficiently complete. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior and explicit sibling routing, though pagination is already reflected in the limit/offset parameters.

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 schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by listing concrete token types (HOTP/TOTP/YubiKey), which helps an agent understand valid values for the 'type' filter beyond the schema's generic 'Filter by token type.'

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List hardware tokens' and names the categories HOTP/TOTP/YubiKey. It also establishes account scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like duo_list_user_tokens and duo_list_desktop_tokens.

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 states the optional filtering by type/serial and makes clear this is an account-wide listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the scope and resource type give an agent enough context to avoid user-scoped siblings.

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