pex_get_auth_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It establishes the authentication context ('authenticated user and app') and data granularity ('basic token details'), but lacks critical behavioral information such as whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, or security sensitivity of the token data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and immediately clarifies the object and scope. No words are wasted, and the length is appropriate for a zero-parameter retrieval tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description adequately covers the basic operation but leaves gaps regarding return value structure and fails to differentiate from the numerous sibling token-retrieval tools in the API surface.

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, which per evaluation guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter explanation since none exist.

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 ('basic token details') and clarifies the scope ('for the authenticated user and app'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'pex_get_current_token', 'pex_get_issued_tokens', or 'pex_list_tokens', leaving ambiguity about which token retrieval tool to use.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or explicit references to sibling tools that perform similar token-related functions.

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