Get ciphers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results span both personally owned and shared/org ciphers. It says nothing about archived/deleted items, pagination, or result volume, which for an openWorldHint list endpoint are the remaining unknowns.

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 zero filler — good structure. It is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 three-parameter, open-world list endpoint with no output schema, the description should cover at minimum whether results are filtered/paginated and how the opaque form/params/json_body inputs are used. It covers only scope, leaving the agent guessing how to actually invoke 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 description coverage is 0%: 'form', 'params' and 'json_body' are bare, untyped, undescribed properties. The description provides no hint about what any of them accept (filters? pagination? org ID?), so the agent gets no compensating semantics for a fully undocumented schema.

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 uses a specific verb (List) plus the resource (ciphers) and adds a meaningful scope: 'owned by or shared with the user'. That scope distinguishes it from single-item siblings like vaultwarden_get_cipher and vaultwarden_get_cipher_details, though it never names an alternative 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over vaultwarden_sync, vaultwarden_ciphers_list_items, or the singular get_cipher tools. The closest thing to guidance is the scope phrase 'owned by or shared with', which only weakly implies the vault-wide listing use case.

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