list_access_service_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' does imply a read-only operation and the account scope is stated, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether inactive tokens are included, or the shape of the result. This is adequate for a simple read-only listing tool but leaves some behavior implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part adds meaning: the verb, the resource type, the vendor context, and the scope.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the resource, the action, and the scope. It could be improved by noting that the response is a list of token objects, but the verb 'List' already implies the return style.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, account_id, is documented as 'The account ID'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already fully explains the parameter. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') plus a specific resource ('Cloudflare Access service tokens') and an explicit scope ('for an account'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling Access tools like list_access_apps, list_access_policies, and list_access_groups, and also from list_account_tokens.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_access_apps or list_access_policies, or how it differs from the many other Access list operations. The only scoping cue is 'for an account', but it does not help an agent choose among sibling tools.

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