Список API-токенов

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

The description states the tool returns a list, implying read-only behavior, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. This directly contradicts the description. The description does add return-field details, but the contradiction with the annotation is a severe flaw, leading to a score of 1 per the rubric.

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, clear sentence that conveys the purpose and return fields. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 parameterless list tool, the description adequately explains what is returned and the scope (all account API tokens). However, the contradiction with readOnlyHint=false creates ambiguity about whether the tool is truly read-only, which prevents a perfect score. Without that issue, it would be a 5.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (ID, names, lifetime), but since there are no parameters to explain, it cannot exceed the baseline.

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 'Возвращает список' (returns a list) and identifies the resource as 'API-токенов аккаунта' (account API tokens), also mentioning the returned fields (ID, names, lifetime). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like create_api_key, delete_api_key, edit_api_key, and refresh_api_key.

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 the tool is used to list all API tokens of an account. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, the context is clear from the name and the fact that siblings are mutations. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so it misses a 5 but is above a 3.

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