Get api webauthn

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the tool is a stub returning an empty list, so the agent knows not to expect real passkeys. Limited further detail, but annotations carry the rest.

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?

A single compact parenthetical with the key fact (stub, empty list) front-loaded and the reason immediately following. Efficient, no filler.

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 stub endpoint the description explains what it returns and why it exists, which is the essential context. The only omission is parameter handling, but the tool is a no-op shim where params are likely irrelevant.

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?

Three parameters (form, params, json_body) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about them. The agent gets no guidance on what to pass or whether they are ignored for this stub – a real gap since 0% coverage means the description should compensate.

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?

States a specific outcome: a stub that returns an empty passkey list, with the reason (Vaultwarden does not support WebAuthn passwordless login). An agent can infer it differs from the real vaultwarden_get_webauthn, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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?

'Prevents client errors' implies when to use it (client compatibility shims expecting a webauthn endpoint), but no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative vs vaultwarden_get_webauthn or the activate_webauthn siblings. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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