Get emergency access

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

The annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful nuance that it returns one record rather than a list, but it does not explain not-found behavior, permissions, or return shape.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The annotations adequately cover the safety profile for a simple read, and the description states the core lookup behavior. However, with four schema parameters at 0% coverage and no output schema, the definition remains thin about parameter handling and what the returned record contains.

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%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It only clarifies emer_id by saying the record is fetched 'by id' and leaves form, params, and json_body unexplained.

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: it retrieves exactly one emergency-access record by id. It is clear enough to distinguish from list-oriented tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby sibling operations such as vaultwarden_view_emergency_access or the other emergency-access mutation tools.

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?

Mentioning 'by id' implies the tool should be used when the emergency-access id is known. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the many emergency-access siblings.

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