Get sends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — the result is scoped to the authenticated caller only — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether expired sends are included, which matters for an openWorldHint listing.

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 and the scoping qualifier placed where it is read first. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no annotations beyond hints, the description leaves the agent without any picture of the returned shape or how the three wrapper parameters affect it. For a listing tool with 0% schema coverage, more was needed.

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) carry zero schema description coverage, and the description gives no parameter guidance at all. Mitigating factor: all three are optional, so an agent can call it with no arguments, but any filtering behavior is entirely undiscoverable.

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?

"List" + "Sends" is a specific verb and resource, and "the caller's own" narrows scope versus admin/organization-wide variants. It does not, however, disambiguate from near-duplicate siblings like vaultwarden_sends or vaultwarden_get_send, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit statement of when to use this instead of vaultwarden_get_send (single send), vaultwarden_sends, or vaultwarden_download_send. The only implicit cue is "own", which hints at a self-scoped listing but never spells out the alternative or condition.

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