list_api_tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /user/tokens), which usefully confirms the tokens are the authenticated user's rather than project-scoped, but it says nothing about whether secret token values are returned, whether results are paginated, or what happens with zero tokens.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with no filler. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than genuinely terse-and-complete.

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 zero-argument read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to call it. However, an agent still lacks any sense of the response shape (token fields, masked values, ordering), which a one-clause addition could have supplied.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain arguments, and it correctly implies the scope comes from the authenticated session rather than input.

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 states a specific verb (fetch) and resource (API tokens) scoped to the user, which separates it from create_api_token and delete_api_token in the sibling list. It is clear but does not explicitly say it lists the caller's own tokens rather than tokens of an arbitrary user, which matters since there is no user parameter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_api_token or delete_api_token, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage can only be inferred from the tool name and the read-only annotation.

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