list_server_access_tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint URL, which is essentially redundant with the name. It doesn't contradict the annotations, so a middle score reflecting the description's minimal added value is appropriate.

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 short: two sentences, one of which is just the endpoint path. There is no filler or wasted text, though the endpoint line duplicates information already implied by the name.

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 operation with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient. An agent can call it without missing invocation-critical details, though it doesn't explain what the tokens represent or their scope.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline of 4 applies since the description has nothing to document regarding arguments.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Get Server Access Tokens') that matches the tool name. It distinguishes from the many list_* siblings by naming the specific resource (server access tokens), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with closely related tools like list_auth_keys or list_security_resources.

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. Among dozens of list_* siblings including list_auth_keys, list_claim_token_json, and list_security_resources, there is no mention of which tool handles which credential type or when each should be preferred.

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