npm_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 useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by revealing that listed tokens may be reusable automation tokens and that publish tokens require OTP in CI, which informs token-reuse decisions. No contradiction with annotations detected.

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?

Three focused sentences: the first states the action, the second lists output fields, and the third gives practical guidance. There is no filler or repetition; the description is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 paginated list tool with rich annotations and parameter schema, the description is complete. It states the user scope, enumerates the returned fields, and adds a real-world use case. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers return content.

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% with clear default and range documentation for both page and perPage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but schema already carries the full burden, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List all access tokens for the authenticated npm user.' It also enumerates the returned fields (token type, creation date, CIDR restrictions, read-only status), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling write/token-check tools like npm_token_revoke and npm_verify_token.

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 explicitly frames when this tool is valuable: 'Critical for finding reusable automation/granular tokens that cover your org scope' and warns against 'using publish tokens in CI (which still require OTP).' This gives actionable context for tool selection, though it does not name alternative tools directly or state explicit when-not scenarios.

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