credential_profile_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety baseline. The description adds a valuable guarantee that results never include secrets, which informs how the agent can safely use the output. This goes beyond the annotations, though no other behavioral details like pagination are provided.

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 unnecessary words. It communicates the core function and safety guarantee efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. However, the missing explanation of the 'kind' parameter and the lack of an output schema leave some gaps in understanding the full behavior and response format.

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?

The schema includes one optional parameter 'kind' with enum values (ssh, github), but the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain whether 'kind' filters results or how to use it, leaving the parameter semantically ambiguous.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('credential reference profiles'). The qualifiers 'safe' and 'never contain secrets' further distinguish it from sibling tools like credential_profile_save or credential_profile_delete.

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 intended use is implied (to enumerate credential profiles), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like credential_profile_save or credential_profile_set_default. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are mentioned.

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