vk_get_tokens_d975a9c58335

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that authentication is required, that a request body is not usually needed, and that parameter names accept camelCase/snake_case aliases. However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only (though GET implies it) or describe response structure/pagination, which are notable gaps given the lack of annotations.

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 four sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes relevant technical details about request body and parameter aliases. There is some redundancy between the first and third sentences ('Get all api tokens' vs 'Returns all api tokens'), but overall it is concise and well-organized.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail about the response and behavior. It states that all tokens are returned but does not describe the token object shape, pagination details, or error conditions. It is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks the completeness needed for a fully self-contained tool description.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable context by explaining that path and query parameters are top-level fields and that original parameter names accept camelCase and snake_case aliases, which is not visible in the schema. This enhances the agent's ability to construct valid calls.

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 clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('all api tokens of the current user'), and explicitly identifies it as a raw proxy for GET /tokens. This distinguishes it from siblings like vk_delete_tokens and vk_put_tokens, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (to retrieve the current user's API tokens) and provides essential usage context such as authentication requirements and the absence of a typical request body. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, though the GET semantics are clear.

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