auth_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that values are never returned, which is a critical behavioral safety trait. It does not cover prerequisites or side effects, but for a read-only list operation, the key transparency is addressed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is information-dense and free of extraneous words. Every part adds value: action, scope, content list, and exclusion of secrets.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, zero parameters, and existence of an output schema, the description fully covers the essential context. It tells the agent what to expect (names and metadata, not values) without over-explaining, leaving return format details to the output schema.

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, and the schema is fully covered by having no properties. The description adds meaningful context about what is included (names + metadata) and excluded (values), going beyond the minimal baseline for parameterless tools.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List all stored credentials') with a clear scope (all) and content boundary (names + metadata only). This distinguishes it from siblings like auth_get, auth_search, and auth_delete, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly indicates this tool is for listing all credentials, which implies its use case versus alternatives like auth_search or auth_get. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternative tools, leaving it slightly below the highest bar.

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