get_api_tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them -- no mention of default result count, pagination behavior, or whether tokens for all users are returned by default, which matters for a security-sensitive listing.

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?

Three words, zero waste and fully front-loaded, but the brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined concision given sibling tools and a scoping parameter that deserve a mention.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotation gaps, the description still leaves the agent guessing about default scope (all users vs. own tokens), result limits, and how it differs from get_api_token. The structured fields cover safety but not selection.

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%, with limit and admin_id both documented inline, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description contributes nothing extra, which meets the baseline of 3 for full coverage.

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?

"List API tokens" gives a specific verb and resource, so the basic action is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the adjacent get_api_token (singular), which is the natural point of confusion; the plural name implies listing, but the description never says so explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus get_api_token, get_api_token_audit, or get_users. The only hint of scope is buried in the schema's admin_id field ('omit for all tokens'), not in the description.

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