pve_tokens_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly states the operation is read-only and lists the returned fields, including that the secret is not revealed. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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, front-loading the purpose and key detail about the userid format. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 presence of an output schema (reducing need to describe return format), and the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description covers the core functionality, input format, and related tools. It lacks mention of authentication or error conditions, but these are partially covered by the tool's read-only nature and the output schema. Overall comprehensive enough for an agent.

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 description coverage is 50% (only proximo_target has a description). The description adds crucial information for the userid parameter: the format 'user@realm'. It also explains the return fields, which is not in the schema. This adds significant meaning beyond what the input schema provides.

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 API tokens for a specific user and is read-only. It specifies the exact fields returned (id, comment, expiry, privsep) and explicitly notes that the secret is not included, distinguishing it from token creation. The verb 'list' and resource 'API tokens for a specific user' are precise.

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 the required userid format and directs users to pve_token_create/revoke for token management. While it does not explicitly exclude other contexts or list alternatives among the many sibling tools, it gives clear context for when to use this tool (to list tokens) versus managing tokens. More explicit when-not guidance would improve it.

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