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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so by disclosing a permission scoping ('this token may read'), the return boundary ('names and who attached them'), and a security-sensitive guarantee ('never the values'). It could go further by describing what happens when neither parameter is supplied, but the disclosed behavior is clear and non-obvious.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the return limitation follows immediately, and the operational note is placed last. Every sentence 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description states what is returned, what is deliberately not returned, which parameters to use, and when to switch to the related reveal_credential tool. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the two parameters are used one-or-the-other ('Pass issueKey or pageId') and by mapping the credential source to issues or wiki pages. It does not fully resolve ambiguity about what happens if both are passed, but it materially improves schema-only guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the credentials attached to an issue or a wiki page.' It also narrows scope to what 'this token may read' and explicitly states the return content ('names and who attached them, never the values'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling reveal_credential.

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?

It tells the agent to pass 'issueKey or pageId' and explicitly routes value-reading to reveal_credential, adding the condition 'only when you are about to use it.' This gives an explicit alternative and a behavioral guardrail, which is strong usage guidance.

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