pbs_user_tokens_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and clearly states it is READ-ONLY, meaning no modifications. It also clarifies that the secret is not returned (only shown at creation/regeneration). No mention of rate limits or auth details beyond the config, but for a list operation this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads 'READ-ONLY' to immediately convey safety. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, return fields, what is excluded, management alternatives, and configuration requirement.

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 that an output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, the description is quite complete. It covers the tool's operation, return values (including noting exclusion of secret), and links to management tools. It could optionally mention if there is any ordering or pagination, but for a token list that is likely not 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'Owning PBS user' for userid). The description does add context about output fields but that is not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool lists API tokens for a PBS user, specifies the exact returned fields (token-name, tokenid, comment, expiry, enabled flag), and explicitly mentions what is NOT returned (the secret). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbs_token_create (create) or pbs_token_update (update).

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 explicitly directs users to pbs_token_create/update/delete for managing tokens, providing clear alternatives. It also notes the prerequisite 'Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config'. However, it does not explicitly describe when to use this tool vs. other listing tools (e.g., pbs_tokens_list), but the context implies it is for a specific user's tokens.

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