list_api_tokens

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses the read-only nature. The description adds no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication, or data freshness. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation, so a neutral score is appropriate.

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 a single, concise phrase that communicates the purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and minimal.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, list-only), the description is fully adequate. The output schema covers return values, and the annotation covers safety. No further context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is complete. With no parameters to describe, this dimension is trivially satisfied; the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 '列出个人 API 令牌' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (personal API tokens). It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like list_admin_accounts or list_vpn_accounts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are many sibling list tools. No exclusions or contextual triggers are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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