List an Organization's SCIM tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveHint, so the tool is clearly safe to call. The description adds value by warning that the token secret is never included—a critical detail for agents expecting the full token value. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that fully convey purpose and a critical behavioral caveat. 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 tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and excellent annotations. The description is largely complete, but it does not describe the output format (e.g., list of tokens with fields like id, name, status) or pagination behavior, which could be useful for agents. Still, given the low complexity, it is adequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage and clearly documents the scim_id parameter with its format (uuid) and a cross-reference to scaleway_iam_get_scim_config's id field. The description does not repeat parameter details, which is acceptable given complete schema coverage. A slight deduction because the description could mention that scim_id is required and comes from another action.

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 SCIM provisioning tokens, specifying the exact resource (SCIM tokens) and the verb (list). It distinguishes itself from related tools like scaleway_iam_create_scim_token or scaleway_iam_delete_scim_token by mentioning the token secret is never included, which is a key behavioral 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 explicitly indicates when not to expect the token secret (only visible at creation via another tool). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other IAM list tools (like list_api_keys), but the unique resource type (SCIM tokens) and the schema dependency on scim_id from get_scim_config make it clear enough.

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