list_admin_tokens

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only listing operation and provides useful context about named admin tokens' access, but it does not disclose return format, permissions, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core action. Each sentence adds relevant information: the listing scope and the nature of admin tokens.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, filtering, licensing constraint, and token context. It does not explain the return structure, which would be helpful without an output schema, but the overall completeness is strong for a list operation.

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 schema fully describes the tokenName parameter with a case-insensitive partial-match filter. The description only repeats that filtering is optional, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool lists all admin tokens (operator and named), with optional filtering. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_resource_tokens by specifying 'admin tokens' and the operator/named distinction.

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 conveys its use case by naming the resource type and mentions the 'Core/Enterprise only' constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the scope is clear from the name and description.

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