creds_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states that credentials are returned with decrypted passwords/hashes, which is a critical behavioral trait for a security tool. It also explains the empty-filter behavior, adding transparency beyond what annotations would provide.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose and then concisely explaining parameters. There is no redundant phrasing, and every clause adds value.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, filter semantics, and return content (decrypted passwords/hashes). It does not detail output format or pagination, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the existing sibling context.

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 input schema only provides property names and types, but the description gives full meaning for each parameter: host is a filter by IP/hostname with empty meaning 'all', and service is a filter by type (e.g., 'ssh', 'http') with empty meaning 'all'. This exceeds the schema's information and substantially aids correct invocation.

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 begins with 'List stored credentials', which is a clear verb+resource construction. It also specifies the optional filters (host, service), distinguishing it from sibling tools like creds_use and creds_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 phrase 'for use in further attacks' implies this tool is for retrieving credentials to reuse, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools (creds_store, creds_use) are not mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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