List Depot project tokens

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses security-relevant behavior: the token secret is never returned, the server never creates tokens, and creating/rotating/revoking is not offered. It also notes 'Organization token only,' adding an auth/scope constraint not present in annotations or schema.

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 well front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and caveats/use cases following. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to some overlap between 'this server never creates one' and the later 'creating, rotating, or revoking a token is not offered,' but no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the key context: what is listed, what is never exposed, why to use it, how it relates to a sibling, and the auth scope. There is no significant gap an agent would need to fill before calling it.

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 only parameter, projectId, is already documented in the schema with a description and a source hint ('from depot_list_projects'). The tool description reinforces that the parameter identifies one Depot container build project, providing context beyond the raw 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?

Description names the exact verb ('List'), resource ('project tokens'), and scope ('for one Depot container build project'), and states what is returned (id, description, timestamps). It also explicitly excludes the token secret, making the purpose precise and distinct from any token-management or secret-list sibling.

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 gives explicit use cases ('credential inventory and access reviews') and example questions, and names the complementary sibling depot_audit_trust_policies for the OIDC side. It does not explicitly enumerate when to use one of the other list tools instead, but it clearly marks read-only scope and the absence of create/rotate/revoke operations.

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