List saved logins

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the record shape and the security-relevant boundary 'never a cookie or a stored value', which tells the agent what sensitive data is NOT exposed. It omits pagination and auth details, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the key caveat ('never a cookie or a stored value') is placed last for emphasis. The inline JSON shape makes the sentence run-on, but since there is no output schema that information 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden and enumerates the fields (domain, savedAt, cookieCount, localStorage, sessionSha256), so the agent knows what it receives. The only real gap is usage routing, which leaves it just short of 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description appropriately spends its budget on return contents rather than parameters, and there are no parameters that need semantic clarification.

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 identifies the resource precisely ('The person's saved logins') and names the sibling that populates them ('import_login, octocrawl login import'), so an agent can tell this is a read of imported login records. It stops short of an explicit list verb and only partially distinguishes itself from remove_login, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives; the agent is left to infer usage from the name and the mentioned import_login relationship. remove_login is a natural comparison point but is never referenced, and no preconditions are stated.

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