user_passkey_register_get

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, yet it only echoes the HTTP method. It does not say what the returned registration parameters are (challenge, RP ID, user handle), whether user_id is required for admin impersonation flows, or whether the endpoint is idempotent/session-bound.

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 short and the purpose line comes early, but the trailing "Тег:" and "Спека:" lines are raw spec metadata rather than agent-relevant content, so not every line 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 annotations, no output schema, and a 3-parameter schema, the description should explain what the call returns and where it fits in the passkey registration sequence. It does neither, leaving the definition thin for what is a multi-step auth flow.

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 limit, offset and user_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about how pagination or user_id interact with the registration-parameter retrieval, which is the only real semantic gap. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ("GET /user/passkey/register" / "Get Passkey registration parameters"), so the purpose is identifiable. However, it gives no differentiation from adjacent siblings such as user_passkey_register_post or user_passkey_get, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the natural alternative (user_passkey_register_post, which presumably completes the registration this tool begins). The agent is left to infer that this is the first step of a registration flow.

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