List DDNS tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses that returned data never includes the full token value (a security behavior) and that dns:read permission is required when using an API key (auth requirement). It does not describe pagination or output structure, but the additions are substantive.

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 sentences, each front-loaded with essential information: purpose, security/privacy note, and auth requirement. No filler or redundancy; 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 list operation with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, privacy, and auth. It does not describe what fields are returned beyond the token omission, but given the simplicity and existing annotations, this is a minor gap.

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% and the single parameter zone_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as format or ID type. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 verb (List) and resource (DNS updater tokens for a DNS zone), and it clarifies the token types (DDNS A/AAAA and ACME DNS-01 TXT). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write operations like create_ddns_token and revoke_ddns_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 implies when to use it (to list tokens for a zone), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tools are named as alternatives, leaving usage to inference.

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