get_tokens

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that authentication is required and that the result is scoped to the authenticated user, which is useful context. However, it does not describe pagination, response structure, or explicitly confirm the operation is non-destructive, though 'Get' strongly implies read-only behavior.

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 short sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second states the authentication prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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-parameter read-only list endpoint, the description covers the action, resource, user scope, and authentication requirement. There is no output schema, but the return type ('a list of API tokens') is clearly implied. Additional detail about pagination or token fields would be nice but is not essential for correct invocation.

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 zero parameters and no required parameters, so there is little for the description to add. The description correctly implies this is a parameterless call, and the baseline for zero parameters is appropriately high.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('API tokens'), and adds the scope 'for the authenticated user.' It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling token tools create_token, update_token, and delete_token, so an agent can tell this is the read/list operation.

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 implies when to use this tool: when the authenticated user needs to retrieve their API tokens. It also gives a prerequisite ('API token required'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implicit rather than fully explicit.

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