List OAuth2 Tokens

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral disclosure: token values are never returned. This is important security-relevant context beyond what annotations provide. It also clarifies the scope as cached tokens, though it does not cover pagination or error behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a critical non-disclosure guarantee and a note about project context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates what is returned (grant type, expiry) and what is intentionally omitted (token values). The project context requirement is also included. It does not explain list formatting or empty-result behavior, but those are minor for this tool.

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%, and the single parameter environmentId is fully documented as the Public Id (Guid) of the environment. The description reinforces the environment-scoping relationship but does not add substantial semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'OAuth 2.0 tokens cached for an environment.' It also specifies the returned attributes (grant type and expiry) and differentiates the tool from generic auth-related siblings by emphasizing cached tokens and environment scoping.

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 clearly indicates this is for listing cached OAuth 2.0 tokens for a specific environment and notes that project context is required. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among many list_* siblings.

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