Get auth requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that results are limited to the current user's requests, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume for what could be an unbounded list.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and status filter come before any implied alternative. Nothing extraneous and nothing padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place a caller could learn what comes back (list shape, fields, pagination), and it stays silent. It is minimally sufficient to identify the operation but not to call it confidently or interpret the response.

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 0% across all three parameters (form, params, json_body), and the description supplies no information about what any of them accept or how to shape a request. For a tool whose schema is entirely undocumented, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 verb and resource ('List all ... auth requests') plus the scope ('for current user') and the statuses covered ('pending/approved'). This differentiates it implicitly from siblings like vaultwarden_get_auth_request (singular), vaultwarden_get_auth_requests_pending, and vaultwarden_get_auth_request_response, though it never names them.

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 phrase 'pending/approved' implies this is the broad listing tool versus the pending-only sibling, but the description never states when to use this instead of vaultwarden_get_auth_requests_pending or vaultwarden_get_auth_request. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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