API-токены терминала

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully notes that token values are usually not returned again by the server, which prevents an agent from expecting secrets in the response, but it does not address auth requirements, pagination, or response structure.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a valuable caveat in parentheses. Every part contributes useful information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 list operation, the core information is present: what is listed, for which terminal, and an important caveat about token values. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could still be more complete about the response contents or any pagination/limitations.

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 terminalId already documented as 'Идентификатор терминала'. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific operation — 'Список выпущенных JWT-токенов публичного API для терминала' — clearly identifying a read-only list action on terminal API tokens. This is readily distinguishable from sibling create/revoke token tools by the verb and resource.

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 list semantics imply this tool should be used to retrieve existing API tokens, and the sibling names create/revoke suggest alternatives. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, conditions, or exclusions, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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