cf_list_service_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only metadata is returned and provides the HTTP method and endpoint. It does not cover authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects, but the key behavioral trait is addressed.

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 three sentences, each conveying essential information: the action, the key limitation, the rationale, and the API call. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description correctly focuses on behavioral context. However, it omits details like pagination, filtering, or what 'metadata' includes, which would help an agent understand the full scope of the response.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description only hints at account_id through the URL template, without explaining its origin or format. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently populate the parameter.

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 tool lists Access service tokens and explicitly notes it returns metadata only. This distinguishes it from any potential tool that might return secrets, providing a specific verb-resource pair.

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 explains the tool never returns the secret, implying it should be used only when metadata is needed. However, it lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools or guidance on when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity.

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