list_tokens

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The '(admin: all)' note adds a hint about required privilege, but it is cryptic and does not say whether it returns every user's tokens or only the caller's.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single short clause with no padding. However, 'HTTP GET /tokens' largely restates the tool name and contributes no decision-relevant information.

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 no-parameter, read-only list tool this is nearly complete, and the annotation covers the safety profile. The unresolved ambiguity between 'personal' tokens and the '(admin: all)' scope is the main remaining gap.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List personal access tokens'), which cleanly separates it from the create_token and revoke_token siblings by verb. The '(admin: all)' fragment is not explained, so the exact scope of what is listed is left slightly ambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, even though create_token and revoke_token exist as obvious complements. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to those siblings from the name alone.

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