get_api_tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action—no mention of what is returned, whether token secrets are included, pagination behavior, or scope (e.g., all tokens vs. current user's). Since it adds nothing beyond the annotations, it fails to disclose any additional behavioral traits.

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 concise phrase with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and there is no redundant or repetitive content. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the annotations plus schema cover the main operational details. However, the description does not differentiate from the singular 'get_api_token' sibling or clarify the scope of the list (e.g., all tokens vs. filtered by user). For a list tool, a bit more context would improve completeness, but the low complexity keeps this from being severely inadequate.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'limit' with 'Max results'. The description does not mention the parameter at all, but the schema already fully documents it, so the description does not need to compensate. 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?

The description 'List API tokens' uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('API tokens'), making the core action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_api_token' (singular) or 'get_api_token_audit', though the plural vs. singular distinction provides some implicit separation.

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. It does not mention that a user might want a single token via 'get_api_token' or audit logs via 'get_api_token_audit'. No context, exclusions, or alternative conditions are given.

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