List registry credentials

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the underlying API call (GET /registrycredentials) and the permission-based scoping (credentials you have permissions to view), which provides additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 somewhat repetitive (the first two sentences essentially restate the same idea). While it is not overly long, the structure could be tightened to remove redundancy. The key information is present but could be presented more 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 has 10 parameters (including pagination-related ones) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the filtering behavior but does not explain pagination limits or the structure of the response. For a listing tool, mentioning pagination or linking to the API docs would improve completeness.

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 100%, meaning each parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description does not add further parameter-level guidance beyond stating that filters are available. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any missing schema details.

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 purpose: listing registry credentials with optional filters. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('registry credentials'), and explicitly distinguishes from related siblings like render_create_registry_credential and render_retrieve_registry_credential by focusing on listing.

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 explains when to use the tool (to list credentials, with or without filters) and notes that unfiltered calls return all viewable credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for retrieving a single credential) or mention alternatives like render_retrieve_registry_credential.

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