user_passkey_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It says it lists passkeys but discloses nothing about permissions, whether it requires admin privileges (user_id says 'admin acts on behalf of this user'), pagination behavior, or what data is returned. 'GET' implies a read operation, but that is the only behavioral hint.

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 short but mixes English HTTP route notation, Russian prose, and internal metadata tags ('Тег', 'Спека'). It lacks a clear top-level statement of purpose; the most useful line ('Список зарегистрированных Passkey') is not front-loaded.

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 GET tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining return format or authorization requirements. Instead it provides only a route and a tag, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about what the call returns and under what authority it runs.

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 100%, so both limit/offset and user_id are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 the HTTP route (GET /user/passkey) and, in Russian, that it lists registered passkeys. This identifies verb+resource but is mostly a restatement of the tool name without differentiating it from siblings like user_passkey_post, user_passkey_delete, or user_passkey_register_get.

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 versus alternatives such as user_passkey_register_get or user_auth_passkey_get. The 'Тег' and 'Спека' metadata are organizational tags, not usage instructions.

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