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

Annotations already mark it read-only, so the description goes beyond them by adding non-obvious behavior: only titles are returned, never body or passwords, and pagination continues via next_offset. This materially changes how an agent invokes and interprets results.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core operation is front-loaded, followed by the critical content exclusion and pagination behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 six-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description communicates the essential semantics and pagination but omits parameter roles such as required share_id, type/state filtering, and limit usage. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description compensates only for the query parameter (title search) and the offset/next_offset pagination concept. It does not explain share_id, type, state, limit, or how these filters interact, leaving most of the six parameters semantically opaque.

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: searching/listing Proton Pass items by title, and explicitly notes it does not return body content or passwords. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_notes and read_field, so an agent can differentiate without opening the schema.

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 implies the intended use case: title-based searching/list retrieval while excluding sensitive content, which helps an agent decide against using body/password tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide – it only states the action. Since the safety profile is covered by annotations, a 3 is appropriate; the description is not misleading.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately brief for a simple list operation.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'share' or what fields are returned in the list. However, the tool name and context suggest a straightforward list operation, and annotations cover safety. Some additional context about the output format would improve completeness, but it is not critically deficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description is clear about what the tool does, and no parameters are required.

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?

Description clearly states the action (確認する = check/view) and the resource (許可された共有の一覧 = list of authorized shares). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_vaults and list_items, which cover different resources. The verb and object are specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool name and description make the purpose clear, there is no mention of conditions or scenarios that would lead an agent to choose this over list_vaults or list_items. For a tool with several siblings, this is a gap.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds that only accessible vaults are returned and that share_id is a key output. It does not describe response shape or possible pagination, but the added context is reasonable for a read-only list.

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 two short clauses with no filler; the first states the operation and scope, the second states the integration purpose. It is front-loaded and every word 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 no-parameter, read-only list tool, the description covers the core resource and identifies the important output field, share_id, that other tools need. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail on returned fields would help, but this is largely sufficient.

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?

This tool has zero input parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameter meaning. The schema coverage is complete by default, and the 0-parameter case correctly gets a baseline score of 4.

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 'Proton Passのアクセス可能な保管庫一覧', a clear list operation on a specific resource scoped to accessible vaults. The second sentence notes that share_id is meant for other tools, which adds context, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling list_shares.

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 implies the tool should be used to obtain a share_id to pass to other tools, giving useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_shares or other siblings, leaving some routing to inference.

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

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

annotations（readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, destructiveHint: false）があり、安全な読み取り操作であることは既に示されている。descriptionはそれに加えて、取得した値がツール結果に含まれること、秘密値が含まれること、使用条件を開示しており、追加の行動的コンテキストを提供している。annotationsと矛盾はない。4点が妥当。

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?

2文で構成され、各文が重要な情報を含む。最初の文でツールの目的と秘密値の扱いを明確にし、2文目で検索ツールとの使い分けを簡潔に指示。情報が過不足なくコンパクトにまとまっており、重要な内容が先頭に配置されている。

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?

このツールは単一フィールドの取得という単純な操作で、annotationsが安全性を網羅し、output_schemaがないため戻り値の形式は重要だが説明がない。しかし、取得するフィールド名とIDの4パラメータがすべて必須で、reasonフィールドの目的もschemaで説明されており、descriptionで述べられている使用条件（検索はsearch_notes）も含め、エージェントが正しく呼び出すための主要な情報は揃っている。わずかな欠落（戻り値の詳細）を考慮して4が適切。

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は50%で、fieldとreasonの説明がschemaにあるが、item_idとshare_idは説明がない。descriptionはfieldが「pass-cliのフィールド名」であることを補足しているが、item_idとshare_idの意味は説明されておらず、schemaの説明に依存している。schemaが半分のパラメータを既に説明しているので、baselineの3が適切で、descriptionが大幅に補足しているわけではない。

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?

明確に1つのProton Passフィールドを取得することを述べ、検索ツール（search_notes）と区別している。秘密値を含む明示的な依頼に使うという具体的な使用文脈も示されており、ツールの目的が明確に伝わる。

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?

descriptionは「検索はsearch_notesを使う」と明示的に代替ツールを指定し、取得と検索の使い分けを示している。また「ユーザーが取得を求めた」「秘密値を必要とする明示的な依頼」という使用条件を述べており、いつ使うべきかが明確で、排他的なガイドラインもある。

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

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

Beyond the read-only/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it does not return body text, matches 3 items at a time, and requires continuing with next_cursor when complete=false to collect all matches. It also adds the per-vault execution detail, exceeding what annotations provide.

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 composed of five compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: search scope, output omission, batch size, pagination contract, and per-vault requirement. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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, the description adequately covers the returned fields (title, ID, status) and the pagination mechanism needed to gather all results. It stops short of detailing the exact JSON response shape or potential error cases, but the core invocation essentials are present.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that query searches title and body substrings, page_size is effectively 3 per call, cursor is used to continue pagination, and share_id maps to per-vault execution. Although state and reason are not explicitly explained in the description, their meaning is already present in the schema.

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 searches Proton Pass text notes by exact substring in title and body, and explicitly lists what it returns (matching title, ID, status). It is specific and resource-bound, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like list_items or read_field.

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 gives useful contextual hints such as 'Keeper import' and instructs to execute per vault. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_items or read_field, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so it is clear this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond that, such as what status information is returned or how authentication state is determined. It does not contradict annotations; it's just sparse given the annotations do heavy lifting.

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?

A single clear sentence in Japanese, front-loaded and concise. It earns its place by stating both product (Proton Pass) and context (pass-cli). No extra 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only status tool with clear annotations, the purpose description is largely complete. A minor gap is not describing what the status output looks like, but with no output schema and a merely intended 'check', the core is covered. Since it uses a Japanese sentence and no usage guidance, a complete score would demand slightly more.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden. The description's role is only to clarify purpose, which it does. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 'Proton Pass pass-cliの既存認証セッションを確認する' states a specific verb (確認/check) and resource (existing authentication session) for the Proton Pass CLI. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools, which all deal with vaults, shares, items, notes, and fields—none of which indicate session handling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs the alternatives. It doesn't mention whether this should be called before listing vaults or performing other operations, and it doesn't name any excluded scenarios or alternative tools. The context is implied only through the verb and resource.

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