List a User's active JWTs (browser/console sessions)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses a live-probe result showing that API-key credentials get 403 even with full IAMManager, and speculates that the surface is scoped to own JWTs. It also states it reports errors verbatim. No contradiction with annotations.

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 six sentences, but every sentence adds value: purpose, differentiation, live-probe results, and caveats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides critical usage context. No wasted words.

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 description covers purpose, differentiation, and behavioral limitations well. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the response format (e.g., fields of a JWT object, pagination). Given the low complexity (1 input param), the lack of output details is a minor gap. Still, the error handling description is a plus.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description of the audience_id parameter (which already says it's the User ID from scaleway_iam_list_users). The description mentions 'for one User' but that's already implied by the required parameter.

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 active JWT sessions (browser/console logins) for one user. It explicitly distinguishes this from API keys, which is a direct sibling tool (scaleway_iam_list_api_keys), making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for interactive-login session tokens, not API keys. It also warns that the tool may only be callable from a human's own session context, not from an API-key-based server, and reports the 403 error verbatim. This is excellent usage advice.

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