passkey_get_active_passkeys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read ('GET') but does not state auth requirements, whether it returns all passkeys or a user's passkeys, or scoping. The word 'active' in the name is unexplained, leaving meaningful behavior undisclosed.

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 terse but in a way that is under-specified rather than efficient. It is essentially three fragments (route, restated name, tags) that provide no real information beyond the tool name itself.

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-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least clarify what is returned and any auth/scoping behavior. Neither the 'active' qualifier nor authentication expectations are addressed, so the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not need to add any.

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 only restates the HTTP route and name: 'GET /api/passkeys' followed by 'Get passkeys'. It conveys the resource (passkeys) and that it's a retrieval, but adds nothing about scope, filtering, or what 'active' passkeys means despite the tool name promising 'active'. It does not differentiate from siblings like passkey_delete_passkey or passkey_update_passkey beyond the verb.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as passkey_passkey_registration_options, auth_passkey_authentication_options, or other passkey tools. There is no context for auth prerequisites or when an agent should reach for this.

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