credence_constraints

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists unverified constraints, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any potential side effects, error conditions, or constraints on usage (e.g., session must exist). The output schema exists but is not described here, so the description is minimally transparent.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the core action front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 simple listing tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the primary use case and when to use it, though it could briefly mention the output structure (e.g., what fields a constraint has) to aid understanding.

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?

There is only one parameter (session_id), and its schema already provides a description ('Session identifier.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List all unverified constraints for a session.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like credence_verify or credence_audit, which have different purposes.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use before writing code that may embed user-stated values, or at session end to audit what still needs confirmation.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternatives.

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