List registration tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the read-only nature via 'List' and the filtering behavior by validity, which adds context beyond the schema's bare type. However, it does not mention pagination, return format, ordering, or access requirements.

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?

One short sentence with a clear subject and optional filter, no filler. It is front-loaded and easily parseable.

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 simple list operation with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient scope. It could be slightly enhanced by naming alternatives or mentioning default behavior, but it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 single 'valid' parameter is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that 'valid' refers to token validity status, but adds no new syntax or formatting details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'List' with resource 'registration tokens' and qualifies with an optional validity filter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get/create/update/delete operations.

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?

It clearly states the tool lists registration tokens and can filter by validity, making the list context apparent. It does not explicitly contrast with get_registration_token or state when to prefer this over alternatives, but the list-vs-single distinction is implicit.

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