List application passwords

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds substantive behavior: an empty list means no passwords, last_used is null when never used, dates are ISO 8601 UTC, the password itself is never returned, and an environment lacking application-password support produces a stated error. That is exactly the security- and failure-related context an agent needs for what is nominally a credentials-adjacent read.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource and return shape, and every clause carries information (permissions, environment requirement, empty-list meaning). It is a dense semicolon-chained sentence, which costs some readability but wastes nothing.

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 compensates by describing the returned object shape, date format, and null semantics. It also covers prerequisites, the environment precondition, and error behavior, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single user_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the not-found behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's ISO 8601 and null-last_used notes describe the return payload rather than adding meaning to user_id, so the 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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'List the application passwords of one user' — plus the exact return shape, which makes the resource unambiguous against siblings like wp_list_users or wp_get_user_meta. It never names a sibling or states the boundary explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'Suited to reviewing which applications can sign in as that user' gives a concrete use context, and the description adds real preconditions: needs list_users and the right to edit the target user (administrators in standard roles), plus HTTPS or a local environment. It does not compare against alternative tools or say when not to use it, so no explicit exclusion.

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